DELAYED CONTACT HYPERSENSITIVITY AND SURGICAL GLOVE PENETRATION WITH ACRYLIC BONE CEMENTS

被引:25
作者
JENSEN, JS
TRAP, B
SKYDSGAARD, K
机构
[1] POLYMERS RECONSTRUCT AS,FARUM,NETHERLANDS
[2] SCANTOX AS,SKENSVED,DENMARK
来源
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA | 1991年 / 62卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.3109/17453679108993086
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Skin hypersensitivity was investigated in guineapig maximization tests with extracts from pellets of conventional polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) bone cements (Palacos R(R), Simplex RO(R)) and a new methylmethacrylate/n-decylmethacrylate/isobornylmethacrylate (MMA/DMA/ IBMA) mixture (Boneloc(R)), but none of the three cements produced evidence of delayed contact hypersensitivity. Testings of the pure monomer compounds showed MMA to be an extreme sensitizer, whereas DMA and IBMA were only mild sensitizers. Fingers from three brands of surgical rubber gloves and a polystyrene-butadiene glove were immersed in water and filled with conventional MMA monomer, MMA/DMA/IBMA monomer or bone cements in the dough state, allowing cure inside the glove. In the surrounding water, no DMA or IBMA could be detected. The MMA concentrations were lower with MMA/DMA/IBMA monomer and curing Boneloc(R) cement. The most resistant to conventional PMMA cement was one of the rubber gloves, whereas the polystyrene-butadiene glove allowed the highest penetration, and even dissolved in MMA monomer. The potential occupational hazard of skin sensitization is reduced with MMA/DMA/IBMA bone cement; preferably in combination with rubber gloves; but also polystyrene-butadiene gloves provide adequate protection.
引用
收藏
页码:24 / 28
页数:5
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1975, POLYM HDB
[2]  
Charnley J, 1970, ACRYLIC CEMENT ORTHO, pvi
[3]  
CHRISTIANSEN ML, 1983, ARBETE HALSA, P21
[4]   SKIN PROTECTION AGAINST METHYLMETHACRYLATE [J].
DARRE, E ;
VEDEL, P ;
JENSEN, JS .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1987, 58 (03) :236-238
[5]   SURGICAL RUBBER GLOVES IMPERVIOUS TO METHYLMETHACRYLATE MONOMER [J].
DARRE, E ;
VEDEL, P .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1984, 55 (03) :254-255
[6]  
Fisher A A, 1975, J Dermatol Surg, V1, P63
[7]  
FISHER AA, 1979, CONTACT DERMATITIS, V5, P56, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1979.tb05541.x
[8]   OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS OF ACRYLATE BONE-CEMENT IN ORTHOPEDIC-SURGERY [J].
FREGERT, S .
ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1983, 54 (06) :787-789
[9]   CONTACT-DERMATITIS IN SURGEONS FROM METHYLMETHACRYLATE BONE CEMENT [J].
FRIES, IB ;
FISHER, AA ;
SALVATI, EA .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1975, A 57 (04) :547-549
[10]   CONTACT-DERMATITIS TO METHYL-METHACRYLATE [J].
KASSIS, V ;
VEDEL, P ;
DARRE, E .
CONTACT DERMATITIS, 1984, 11 (01) :26-28