Stem-cement porosity may explain early loosening of cemented femoral hip components: Experimental-computational in vitro study

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 340-350

  Mann, Kenneth A ^a   Damron, Leatha A ^a   Miller, Mark A ^a   Race, Amos ^a   Clarke, Michael T ^a   Cleary, Richard J ^b  

^a State University of New York Upstate Medical University: College of Medicine   (United States)

^b BENTLEY COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Interface; Loosening; Monte Carlo simulation; Total hip arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

BONE CEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLIMBING; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EXPERIMENTAL MODEL; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IN VITRO STUDY; MATERIALS TESTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; POROSITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; SURFACE PROPERTY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BONE CEMENTS; CEMENTATION; FEMUR; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; POROSITY; PROSTHESIS FAILURE;

EID: 33947364877     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20330     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Freeman MA, Plante-Bordeneuve P. 1994. Early migration and late aseptic failiure of proximal femoral prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:432-438.
2. Karrholm J, Borssen B, Lowenhielm G, et al. 1994. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 76:912-917.
3. Walker PS, Mai SF, Cobb AG, et al. 1995. Prediction of clinical outcome of THR from migration measurements on standard radiographs. A study of cemented Charnley and Stanmore femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:705-714.
4. Kawate K, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, et al. 1998. Importance of a thin cement mantle: autopsy studies of eight hips. Clin Orthop 355:70-76.
5. Herberts P, Malchau H. 2000. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71:111-121.
6. Kobayashi S, Takaoka K, Saito N, et al. 1997. Factors affecting aseptic failure of fixation after primary charnley total hip arthroplasty: multivariate survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1618-1627.
7. Hertzler J, Miller MA, Mann KA. 2002. Fatigue crack growth rate does not depend on mantle thickness: an idealized cemented stem constructed under torsional loading. J Orthop Res 20:676-682.
8. Jasty M, Maloney WJ, Bragdon CR, et al. 1991. The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:551-558.
9. McCormack BAO, Prendergast PJ. 1999. Microdamage accumulation in the cement layer of hip replacements under flexural loading. J Biomech 32:467-475.
10. Stolk J, Maher SA, Verdonschot N, et al. 2003. Can finite element models detect clinically inferior cemented hip implants? Clin Orthop 409:138-150.
11. Baleani M, Fognani R, Toni A. 2003. The influence of stem insertion rate on the porosity of the cement mantle of hip joint replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 217:199-205.
12. Bishop NE, Ferguson S, Tepic S. 1996. Porosity reduction in bone cement at the cement-stem interface. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:349-357.
13. Iesaka K, Jaffe WL, Jones CM, et al. 2005. The effects of fluid penetration and interfacial porosity on the fixation of cemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87: 1298-1302.
14. Iesaka K, Jaffe WL, Kummer FJ. 2003. Effects of preheating of hip prostheses on the stem-cement interface. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:421-427.
15. James SP, Schmalzried TP, McGarry FJ, et al. 1993. Extensive porosity at the cement-femoral prosthesis interface: a preliminary study. J Biomed Mater Res 27: 71-78.
16. Salvati E, Wright T. 2003. Commentary and perspective: effects of preheating of hip prostheses on the stem-cement interface. J Bone Joint Surg. eJBJS, commentary and perspective: www.jbjs.org/comments2003/ cp-marO3-salvati.shtml.
17. Wang JS, Franzen H, Lidgren L. 1999. Interface gap after implantation of a cemented femoral stem in pigs. Acta Orthop Scand 70:234-239.
18. Race A, Miller MA, Ayers DC, et al. 2002. The influence of surface roughness on stem-cement gaps. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:1199-1204.
19. Zhang Y, Putnam AW, Heiner AD, et al. 2002. Reliability of detecting prosthesis/cement interface radiolucencies in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 20:683-687.
20. Race A, Miller MA, Clarke MT, et al. 2005. Cement/implant interface gaps explain the poor results of CMW3 for femoral stem fixation: a cadaver study of migration, fatigue and mantle morphology. Acta Orthop 5:679-687.
21. Race A, Miller MA, Ayers DC, et al. 2003. Early cement damage around a femoral stem is concentrated at the cement/bone interface. J Biomech 36:489-496.
22. Berzins A, Waslielewski RC, Sumner DR. 1993. Implant stability in revision THA: the role of allograft packing and cementing. Trans Orthop Res Soc 18:518.
23. Gill HS, Alfaro-Adrian J, Alfaro-Adrian C, et al. 2002. The effect of anteversion on femoral component stability assessed by radiostereometric analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:997-1005.
24. Mann KA, Gupta S, Race A, et al. 2003. Application of circular statistics in the study of crack distribution around cemented femoral components. J Biomech 36:1231-1234.
25. Mann KA, Bartel DL, Wright TM, et al. 1995. Coulomb frictional interfaces in modeling cemented total hip replacements: a more realistic model. J Biomech 28: 1067-1078.
26. Nuno N, Avanzolini G. 2002. Residual stresses at the stem-cement interface of an idealized cemented hip stem. J Biomech 35:849-852.
27. Lewis G. 1997. Properties of acrylic bone cement: state of the art review. J Biomed Mater Res 38:155-182.
28. Howell JR Jr, Blunt LA, Doyle C, et al. 2004. In vivo surface wear mechanisms of femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties: the influence of wear mechanism on clinical outcome. J Arthroplasty 19:88-101.
29. Stromberg CN, Herberts P, Palmertz B, et al. 1996. Radiographic risk signs for loosening after cemented THA: 61 loose stems and 23 loose sockets compared with 42 controls. Acta Orthop Scand 67:43-48.
30. Nivbrant B, Karrholm J, Soderlund P. 1999. Increased migration of the SHP prosthesis: radiostereometric comparison with the Lubinus SP2 design in 40 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 70:569-577.
31. Gilbert JL, Hasenwinkel JM, Wixson RL, et al. 2000. A theoretical and experimental analysis of polymerization shrinkage of bone cement: a potential major source of porosity. J Biomed Mater Res 52:210-218.
32. Spiegelberg S, McKinley G. 1999. A source of interfacial pore formation in cemented femoral components. Trans Ortho Res Soc 24:253.
33. Perez MA, Garcia-Aznar JM, Doblare M, et al. 2006. A comparative FEA of the debonding process in different concepts of cemented hip implants. Med Eng Phys 28:525-533.
34. Collis DK, Mohler CG. 2002. Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:586-592.
35. Della Vallee AMG, Zoppi A, Peterson MGE, et al. 2005. A rough surface finish adversely affects the survivorship of a cemented femoral stem. Clin Orthop 436:158-163.
36. Ong A, Wong KL, Lai M, et al. 2002. Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:786-792.
37. Sporer SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, et al. 1999. The effects of surface roughness and polymethylmethacrylate precoating on the radiographic and clinical results of the Iowa hip prosthesis. A study of patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:481-492.