Honl, MatthiasMatthiasHonlRentzsch, ReemtReemtRentzschSchwieger, KarstenKarstenSchwiegerCarrero, VolkerVolkerCarreroDierk, OliverOliverDierkDries, Sebastian Peter MichaelSebastian Peter MichaelDriesLouis, HartmutHartmutLouisPude, FrankFrankPudeBishop, NicholasNicholasBishopHille, EkkehardEkkehardHilleMorlock, MichaelMichaelMorlock2024-03-202024-03-202003-12-30Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering 13 (4): 317-325 (2003)https://hdl.handle.net/11420/46662In revision surgeries of endoprostheses, the interface between implant and bone cement or bone must be loosened. Conventional tools have many disadvantages because of their size and limited range. Taking advantage of the selective and athermic cutting process, a plain water jet is already used in order to cut soft tissues. This study investigates the possibilities of both a plain and an abrasive water jet as cutting tools for revision surgery. Samples of the mid-diaphysis of human femora and bone cement (CMW3) were cut with a plain water jet (PWJ) and an abrasive water jet (AWJ) at two different jet-to-surface angles (30°, 90°) and at five different pressure levels (30, 40, 50, 60, 70 MPa). For a PWJ a selective pressure range was identified, where only bone cement was cut. Injecting a bio-compatible abrasive (lactose) to the jet stream resulted in significantly higher cut depths in both materials. Material removal in bone was significantly less at the smaller jet-to-surface angle for both techniques. No clear selectivity between bone and bone cement was observed for application of the AWJ. However, the material removal rate was significantly higher for bone cement than for bone at all pressure levels. The results indicate that an AWJ might be an alternative tool for cement removal. The possibility for localised cutting at interfaces could be an advantage for revision of a non-cemented prosthesis.en1878-361920034317325IOS PressBoneBone cementJet cuttingProsthesisRevisionMedicine, HealthEngineeringJournal ArticleJournal Article