Effects of stem length on mechanics of the femoral hip component after cemented revision

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 62-68

  Mann, K A ^a   Ayers, D C ^a   Damron, T A ^a  

^a SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BONE; BONE CEMENT; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; FRACTURE FIXATION; HIP PROSTHESES; INTERFACES (MATERIALS); MATHEMATICAL MODELS; ORTHOPEDICS; SHEAR STRESS;

CLINICAL LOOSENING; DISTAL FIXATION; FEMORAL HIP COMPONENT; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; STEM LENGTH;

BIOMECHANICS;

BONE CEMENT;

ARTICLE; BIOMECHANICS; ENDOPROSTHESIS LOOSENING; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; MECHANICAL STRESS; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REOPERATION; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

EID: 0031039947     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100150110     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. 1 Amstutz HC, Ma SM, Jinnah RH. Mai L: Revision of aseptic loose total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 170: 21–33, 1982
2. 2 Bean DJ, Convery FR, Woo SL‐Y, Lieber RL: Regional variation in shear strength of the bone‐ polymethylmethacrylate interface. J Arthroplasty 2: 293–298, 1987
3. 3 Brown TD, Pedersen DR, Radin EL, Rose RM: Global mechanical consequences of reduced cement/bone coupling rigidity in proximal femoral arthroplasty: a three‐dimensionalfinite element analysis. J Biomech 21: 115–129, 1988
4. 4 Bugbee WD, Barrera DL, Lee AC. Convery FR: Variations in shear strength of the bone‐cement interface in the proximal femur. Trans Orthop Res Soc 17: 22, 1992
5. 5 Davy DT, Kotzar GM, Brown RH, Heiple KG. Goldberg VM, Heiple KG Jr, Brilla J, Burstein AH: Telemetric Force measurements across the hip after total arthoplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 70: 45–50, 1988
6. 6 Dohmae Y, Bechtold JE, Sherman RE, Puno RM, Gustilo RB: Reduction in cement‐bone interface shear strength between primary and revision arothroplasty. Clin Orthop 236: 214–240, 1988
7. 7 Edidin AA, Taylor DL, Bartel DL: Automatic assignment of bone moduli from CT data: A 3‐D finite element study. Trans Orthop REs soc 16: 491, 1991
8. 8 Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC: “Modes of failure” of cemented stem‐type femoral components: A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141: 17–27, 1979
9. 9 Gustilo RB, Pasternak HS: Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening. Clin Orthop 235: 111–119, 1998
10. 10 Herman JH. Sowder WG, Anderson D, Appel AM, Hop‐son CN: Polymethylmethacrylate‐induced release of bone‐resorbing factors. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 71: 1530–1541, 1989
11. 11 Hori RY. Lewis JL: Mechanical properties of the fibrous tissue found at the bone‐cement interface following total joint replacement. J Biomed Mater Res 16: 911–927, 1982
12. 12 Horowitz SM, Doty SB, Lane JM, “Burstein AH” Studies of the mechanism by which the mechanical failure of polymeth‐ylmethacrylate leads to bone resorption. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 75: 802–813, 1993
13. 13 Kavanagh BF, Llstrup DM, Fitzgerald RH Jr: Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 67: 517–526, 1985
14. 14 Kavanagh BF, Multiple revicions for failed total hip arthroplasty not associated with infection. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 69: 1144–1149, 1987
15. 15 Köb R, Bergmann G, Boenick U: Mechanical engineering of the cement‐bone bond. In: Engineering in Medicine, pp 347–357. Ed by M Schldach and D Hohmen. New York, Springer‐Verlag, 1976
16. 16 Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J: Strength pf the cement‐bone interface. Clin Orthop 163: 290–299, 1982
17. 17 Krause W, Mathis RS: Fatigue properties of acrylic bone cements: review of the literature. J Biomed Mater Res 22 (A1 Suppl): 37–53, 1988
18. 18 Ling RSM: Observations on the fixation of implants to the bony skeleton. Clin Orthop 210: 80–96, 1986
19. 19 Mann KA, Bartel DL, Wright TM, Ingraffea AR: Mechanical characteristics of the stem‐cement interface. J Orthop Res 9: 798–808, 1991
20. 20 Mann KA, Bartel Dl, Wright TM, Burstein AH: Coulomb fricitional interfaces in modeling cemented total hip replacements: a more realistic model. J Biomech 28: 1067–1078, 1995
21. 21 Panjabi MM, Trumble T, Hult JE, Southwick WO: Effect of femoral stem length on stress raisers associated with revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 3: 447–455, 1985
22. 22 Pellicci PM, Wilson PD Jr, Sledge CB, Salvai EA, Ranawat CS, Poss R, Callaghan JJ: Long‐term results of revision total hip replacement: a follow‐up report. J Bone joint Surg [Am] 67: 513–516, 1985
23. 23 Retpen JB, Jensen JS: Risk factors for recurrent aseptic loosening of the femoral component after cemented revision. J Arthroplasty 8: 471–478, 1993
24. 24 Schulte KR, Callaghan JJ, Kelley SS, Johnston RC: The out‐come of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty‐year follow‐up: The results of surgeon. J Bone joint Surg [Am] 75: 961–975, 1993
25. 25 Strömberg CN, Herberts P, Palmertz B: Cemented revision hip arthroplasty: a multicenter 5–9‐year study of 204 first revisions for loosening. Acta Orthop Scand 63: 111–119, 1992
26. 26 Turner RH, Mattingly DA, Scheller A: Femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using a long‐stem femoral component: clinical and radiographic analysis. J Arthroplasty 2: 247–258, 1987
27. 27 Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer H:Trends of mechanical consequences and modeling of a fibrous membrane around femorral hip prosthese. J Biomech 23: 991–1000, 1990
28. 28 Wright TM, Goodman SB [ed]: Implant Wear: The Future of TotalJoint Replacment. Rosemont, Illinois, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 1996