A Geometric Analysis of Polyethylene Liners Exposed to Acrylic-based Bone Cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acrylic-based bone cement (polymethyl methacrylate [PMMA]) is a material commonly used in orthopaedic surgeries; however, during PMMA polymerization, a highly exothermic reaction occurs. The heat released in polymerization can damage nearby materials including poorly heat-resistant cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). Both PMMA and XLPE are used in total hip arthroplasty and could interact during femoral stem fixation. We sought to determine if the exothermic polymerization of PMMA could alter the surface characteristics of XLPE acetabular liners. Methods: Six XLPE liners were assigned to one of 4 experimental categories with varying volumes of PMMA applied in a manner that mimicked how the 2 materials would come into contact intraoperatively. Measurements were taken both pre- and post-intervention using a coordinate measuring machine for geometric and gravimetric analysis. Light microscopy was conducted postintervention to examine the surface for damage. Results: Coordinate measuring machine measurements showed minimal gross deformation in all 6 liners, but there were isolated surface deposits in 4 of 6 liners. The average maximal surface deviations, when compared to the control, for liners exposed to 1 cc of cement, 2 cc of cement, or 1 cc of cement with a femoral head implant attached were 26.6 μm, 77.2 μm, and 26.4 μm, respectively. All but one liner showed an increase in volume following intervention when compared to the control. Subtle scratches were identified using light microscopy on all 6 liners. Conclusions: XLPE shows areas of isolated surface deformation in a dose-dependent manner but with minimal gross deformation after interacting with highly exothermic PMMA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".