Primary and long-term stability of a short-stem hip implant

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine

Volumn 224, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1109-1119

  Dabirrahmani, D ^a,b   Hogg, M ^a,b   Kohan, L ^c   Gillies, M ^a,b  

^a Medical Device Research Australia   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Joint Orthopaedic Centre   (Australia)

Author keywords

bone remodelling; finite element modelling; short stem hip implant

Indexed keywords

BONE MINERAL DENSITY; BONE REMODELLING; CLINICAL DATA; CLINICAL STUDY; CRITICAL THRESHOLD; FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING; FINITE-ELEMENT STUDY; HIP IMPLANTS; HIP RESURFACING; IMPLANT LOOSENING; IMPLANT STABILITY; LONG TERM; LONG TERM STABILITY; MICROMOTION; NUMERICAL SIMULATION; OSSEOINTEGRATION; PRIMARY STABILITIES; STRESS-STRAIN; LONG TERM BEHAVIOURS; SHORT STEM HIPS;

ADAPTIVE ALGORITHMS; BONE; IMPLANTS (SURGICAL); STRESS ANALYSIS; THERMOELECTRICITY; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD;

STABILITY;

AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BONE DENSITY; BONE REMODELING; CADAVER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; MALE; MECHANICAL STRESS; MOTION; PROSTHESIS; TIME;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BONE DENSITY; BONE REMODELING; CADAVER; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MOTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 77956597418     PISSN: 09544119     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM704     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Learmonth, I. D. (ii) Conservative hip implants. Curr. Orthop., 2005, 19(4), 255-262.
2. Kluge, W. Current developments in short stem femoral implants for hip replacement surgery. Orthop. Trauma, 2008, 23(1), xxx-xxx.
3. Udofia, I., et al. The initial stability and contact mechanics of a press-fit resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2007, 89(4), 549-556.
4. Shimmin, A., Beaule, P., and Campbell, P. Metalon-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2008, 90(3), 637-654.
5. Daniel, J., Pynsent, P., and McMinn, D. Metal-onmetal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2004, 86(2), 177-184.
6. McMinn, D., et al. Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing dysplasia component in severe acetabular insufficiency: a six-to 9.6-year follow-up. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2008, 90(6), 715-723.
7. Treacy, R., McBryde, C., and Pynsent, P. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2005, 87(2), 167-170.
8. Kishida, Y., et al. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2004, 86(2), 185-189.
9. Pilliar, R., Lee, J., and Maniatopoulos, C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin. Orthop. Related Res., 1986, 208, 108-113.
10. Westphal, F., et al. Migration and cyclic motion of a new short-stemmed hip prosthesis-a biomechanical in vitro study. Clin. Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2006, 21(8), 834-840. Epublication 27 June 2006.
11. Westphal, F., et al. Biomechanics of a new shortstemmed uncemented hip prosthesis: an in-vitro study in human bone. Hip Int., 2006, 16(Suppl. 3), 22-30.
12. Santori, F., et al. Ultra-short stems with proximal load transfer: clinical and radiographic results at five-year follow-up. Hip Int., 2006, 16(Suppl. 3), 31-39.
13. Wolff, J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen (The law of bone remodelling), 1892 (A. Hirschwald, Berlin).
14. Speirs, A., et al. Influence of changes in stem positioning on femoral loading after THR using a short-stemmed hip implant. Clin. Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2007, 22(4), 431-439. Epublication 1 February 2007.
15. Engh, C., McGovern, T., and Schmidt, L. Roentgenographic densitometry of bone adjacent to a femoral prosthesis. Clin. Orthop. Related Res., 1993, 292, 177-190.
16. Albanese, C., et al. Bone remodelling in THA: a comparative DXA scan study between conventional implants and a new stemless femoral component. A preliminary report. Hip Int., 2006, 16(Suppl. 3), 9-15.
17. Aldinger, P., et al. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA. Calcified Tissue Int., 2003, 73(2), 115-121.
18. Stulpner, M. A., et al. A three-dimensional finite analysis of adaptive remodelling in the proximal femur. J. Biomechanics, 1997, 30(10), 1063-1066.
19. Kerner, J., et al. Correlation between pre-operative periprosthetic bone density and post-operative bone loss in THA can be explained by strainadaptive remodelling. J. Biomechanics, 1999, 32(7), 695-703.
20. Turner, A. W., et al. Computational bone remodelling simulations and comparisons with DEXA results. J. Orthop. Res., 2005, 23(4), 705-712. Epublication 23 March 2005.
21. Gupta, S., New, A., and Taylor, M. Bone remodelling inside a cemented resurfaced femoral head. Clin. Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon), 2006, 21(6), 594-602. Epublication 20 March 2006.
22. Watanabe, Y., et al. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis of the femoral component. J. Arthroplasty, 2000, 15(4), 505-511.
23. Ong, K., et al. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2006, 88(8), 1110-1115.
24. Smith & Nephew. Birmingham hip mid head resection-surgical technique, 2009.
25. Gillies, R. M., Kohan, L., and Cordingley, R. L. Periprosthetic bone remodelling of a collum femoris preserving cementless titanium femoral hip replacement. Comput. Meth. Biomech. Biomed. Engng, 2007, XX, 1-6.
26. Carter, D. R. and Hayes, W. C. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 1977, 59(7), 954-962.
27. Huiskes, R. and Rietbergen, B. V. Biomechanics of bone. In Basic orthopaedic biomechanics and mechano-biology (Eds V. C. Mow and R. Huiskes), 2005, Ch. 4.
28. Automations Creations Inc. Mat web-material property data, 2009, available from www.matweb. com.
29. Duda, G., et al. Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J. Biomechanics, 1998, 31(9), 841-846.
30. ASTM: D 4518-4591 Standard test methods for measuring static friction of coating surfaces, 1991 (American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania).
31. Huiskes, R., Weinans, H., and van Rietbergen, B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin. Orthop. Related Res., 1992, 274, 124-134.
32. Frost, H. Bone 'mass' and the 'mechanostat': a proposal. Anat. Rec., 1987, 219(1), 1-9.
33. Viceconti, M., et al. Primary stability of an anatomical cementless hip stem: a statistical analysis. J. Biomechanics, 2006, 39(7), 1169-1179. Epublication 31 May 2005.
34. Goodman, S., et al. Difference in bone ingrowth after one versus two daily episodes of micromotion: experiments with titanium chambers in rabbits. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1993, 27(11), 1419-1424.
35. Karrholm, J., et al. Evaluation of a femoral stem with reduced stiffness. A randomized study with use of radiostereometry and bone densitometry. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., 2002, 84-A(9), 1651-1658.
36. Karrholm, J., et al. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 1994, 76(6), 912-917
37. Jin, Z. M., Meakins, S., Morlock, M. M., Parsons, P., Hardaker, C., Flett, M., and Isaac, G. Deformation of press-fitted metallic resurfacing cups. Part 1: Experimental simulation. Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2006, 220(2), 299-309. DOI: 10.1243/095441105X69150.
38. Herrera, A C., et al. Long-term study of bone remodelling after femoral stem: a comparison between DEXA and finite element simulation. J. Biomechanics, 2007.
39. Hayaishi, Y., et al. Proximal femoral bone mineral density after resurfacing total hip arthroplasty and after standard stem-type cementless total hip arthroplasty, both having similar neck preservation and the same articulation type. J. Arthroplasty, 2007, 22(8), 1208-1213.
40. Rahmy, A., et al. Periprosthetic bone remodelling of two types of uncemented femoral implant with proximal hydroxyapatite coating: a 3-year followup study addressing the influence of prosthesis design and preoperative bone density on periprosthetic bone loss. Osteoporos Int., 2004, 15(4), 281-289. Epublication 6 December 2003.
41. Boden, H., et al. Continuous bone loss around a tapered uncemented femoral stem: a long-term evaluation with DEXA. Acta Orthop., 2006, 77(6), 877-885.
42. Hing, C., et al. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: an independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2007, 89(11), 1431-1438.
43. Michel, M. and Witschger, P. MicroHip: a minimally invasive procedure for total hip replacement surgery. A modified Smith-Petersen approach. Hip Int., 2006, 16(Suppl. 3), 40-47.
44. Gibbons, C., et al. Periprosthetic bone mineral density changes with femoral components of differing design philosophy. Int. Orthop., 2001, 25(2), 89-92.
45. Heilpern, G., Shah, N., and Fordyce, M. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br., 2008, 90(9), 1137-1142.
46. Ong, K., et al. Role of surgical position on interface stress and initial bone remodeling stimulus around hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty, 2008, XX, xxx-xxx.
47. Schileo, E., et al. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J. Biomechanics, 2007, 40(13), 2982-2989. Epublication 16 April 2007.
48. Morgan, E., Bayraktar, H., and Keaveny, T. Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J. Biomechanics, 2003, 36(7), 897-904.