Aim: Two clinically established PMMA bone cements (Refobacin Palacos R and Palacos R + G) and two newer cements not yet in widespread clinical use (Refobacin Bone Cement R and SmartSet GHV) were tested in vitro for practically relevant differences.
Methods: The tests included chemical analyses, handling properties and testing according to the ISO standard for PMMA bone cements.
Results: The results obtained indicate clearly that the copolymers used in Refobacin Bone Cement R and SmartSet GHV differ from those used in the Palacos cements. There were also significant differences in viscosity behaviour and waiting time (p < 0.01 for Palacos cements versus Refobacin Bone Cement R) as an expression of different handling properties. The hardening times under ISO 5833 conditions also differed significantly (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 for Palacos cements compared with Refobacin Bone Cement R and p < 0.01 for Refobacin Bone Cement R compared with SmartSet GHV).
Conclusion: In view of these differences in material properties, the clinical data from long-term use of the bone cements Refobacin Palacos R and Palacos R + G cannot be extrapolated to the newly developed PMMA cements Refobacin Bone Cement R and Smart GHV. Before broad clinical use of these cements, prospective clinical studies using RSA or DEXA and, as a second step, statistically powerful prospective comparative studies should be performed. Until these data are available, patients in whom Refobacin Bone Cement R and SmartSet GHV are used should be informed that the material employed deviates from the standard procedures for cemented joint replacement in the Scandinavian arthroplasty registers and that the long-term consequences cannot, in the final instance, be foreseen. This is essential in order to avoid later malpractice claims on the grounds of inadequate information.