Table 4.
The BHR resulted in significantly higher overall percent cement penetration, mean depth, and maximal penetration as compared with the Conserve Plus® using both the lower- and higher-viscosity cementation techniques*
| Cement parameter measured | Lower-viscosity cementation technique | Higher-viscosity cementation technique | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BHR | Conserve Plus®-lvt | p value | Conserve Plus® | BHR-hvt | p value | |
| Cement penetration (%) | 66.2 ± 15.5 | 16.3 ± 12.7† | 0.0003 | 19.3 ± 5.5 | 36.7 ± 6.6† | 0.0006 |
| Mean depth (mm) | 12.0 ± 5.0 | 1.9 ± 1.5† | 0.003 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | 4.6 ± 1.1† | 0.0003 |
| Maximal penetration (mm) | 21.7 ± 7.3 | 4.7 ± 2.2† | 0.002 | 4.6 ± 1.9 | 9.7 ± 2.1† | 0.001 |
| Dome mantle height (mm) | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | NS | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 2.9 ± 0.7† | 0.002 |
| Side mantle thickness (mm) | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2† | 0.0001 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 0.2 ± 0.1† | 0.001 |
* The BHR could not always be seated properly when using the higher-viscosity technique as reflected by the thicker cement mantle at dome in this group; the side mantle was thinner for the BHR in both cases; NS = nonsignificant.