Design process of a novel cemented hip femoral stem concept

Materials and Design

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 313-321

  Ramos, A ^a   Completo, A ^a   Relvas, C ^a   Simoes J A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AVEIRO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

A. Ferrous metals and alloys; E. Fatigue; H. Failure analysis

Indexed keywords

CEMENT MANTLE; CEMENT STRESS; CEMENTED HIP PROSTHESIS; COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE; COMPLEX TASK; DESIGN PROCESS; DETAIL DESIGN; E. FATIGUE; FATIGUE TESTS; FEMORAL STEMS; FERROUS METALS AND ALLOYS; H. FAILURE ANALYSIS; HIP REPLACEMENTS; HIP STEM; IN-VITRO; NEW MODEL; NUMERICAL MODELS;

BONE CEMENT; CEMENTS; DESIGN; FAILURE ANALYSIS; FATIGUE TESTING; HIP PROSTHESES; METALLURGY; NUMERICAL METHODS; PROSTHETICS;

GEOMETRY;

EID: 80052537156     PISSN: 02641275     EISSN: 18734197     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.039     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Cristofolini L., et al. Comparative in vitro study on the long term performance of cemented hip stems: validation of a protocol to discriminate between "good" and "bad" designs. J Biomech 2003, 36(11):1603-1615.
2. Stolk J., et al. Finite element-based preclinical testing of cemented total hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 456:138-147.
3. Mann K.A., Bartel D.L., Ayers D.C. Influence of stem geometry on mechanics of cemented femoral hip components with a proximal bond. J Orthop Res 1997, 15(5):700-706.
4. Crowninshield R.D., et al. The effect of femoral stem cross-sectional geometry on cement stresses in total hip reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980, 146:71-77.
5. Massin P., Astoin E., Lavaste F. Influence of proximal stem geometry and stem-cement interface characteristics on bone and cement stresses in femoral hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis. Rev Chir Orthop 2003, 89(2):134-143.
6. Karrholm J. The swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 2010, 81(1):3-4. (http://www.shpr.se).
7. Hailer N.P., Garellick G., Karrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the swedish hip arthroplasty register evaluation of 170, 413 operations. Acta Orthop 2010, 81(1):34-41.
8. Malchau H., et al. The swedish hip registry: increasing the sensitivity by patient outcome data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 441:19-29.
9. Ramos A., Simoes J.A. In vitro fatigue crack analysis of the Lubinus SPII cemented hip stem. Eng Fail Anal 2009, 16(4):1294-1302.
10. Gravius S., et al. In vitro interface and cement mantle analysis of different femur stem designs. J Biomech 2008, 41(9):2021-2028.
11. Haddad F.S., et al. Hypersensitivity in aseptic loosening of total hip replacements - the role of constituents of bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg-British Volume 1996, 78B(4):546-549.
12. Espehaug B., et al. 18years of results with cemented primary hip prostheses in the Norwegian arthroplasty register concerns about some newer implants. Acta Orthop 2009, 80(4):402-412.
13. Engesaeter L.B., et al. Survival of total hip arthroplasties after DDH in the Norwegian arthroplasty register 1987-2004. Hip Int 2007, 17(2):S119.
14. Ramos A., Fonseca F., Simoes J.A. The effect of cemented femoral stem cross-section geometry in total hip replacement. Simul Biomed V 2003, 7:323-331.
15. Latham B., Goswami T. Effect of geometric parameters in the design of hip implants paper IV. Mater Des 2004, 25(8):715-722.
16. Bennett D., Goswami T. Finite element analysis of hip stem designs. Mater Des 2008, 29(1):45-60.
17. Sabatini A.L., Goswami T. Hip implants VII: finite element analysis and optimization of cross-sections. Mater Des 2008, 29(7):1438-1446.
18. Race A., et al. Early cement damage around a femoral stem is concentrated at the cement/bone interface. J Biomech 2003, 36(4):489-496.
19. Cristofolini L., et al. Preclinical assessment of the long-term endurance of cemented hip stems. Part 2: In-vitro and ex-vivo fatigue damage of the cement mantle. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part H-J Eng Med 2007, 221(H6):585-599.
20. Ramaniraka N.A., Rakotomanana L.R., Leyvraz P.F. The fixation of the cemented femoral component - effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement-bone surface. J Bone Joint Surg-British Volume 2000, 82B(2):297-303.
21. Ramos A., Simoes J.A. The influence of cement mantle thickness and stem geometry on fatigue damage in two different cemented hip femoral prostheses. J Biomech 2009, 42(15):2602-2610.
22. Simões J.A., Marques A.T. Design of a composite hip femoral prosthesis. Mater Des 2005, 26(5):391-401.
23. Sridhar I., Adie P.P., Ghista D.N. Optimal design of customised hip prosthesis using fiber reinforced polymer composites. Mater Des 2010, 31(6):2767-2775.
24. Fevang B.T.S., et al. 257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005. Acta Orthop 2007, 78(5):575-583.
25. Marston R.A., Cobb A.G., Bentley G. Stanmore compared with Charnley total hip replacement - a prospective study of 413 arthroplasties. J Bone and Joint Surg-British Volume 1996, 78B(2):178-184.
26. Emery D., et al. The stanmore total hip arthroplasty - a 15- to 20-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 1997, 12(7):728-735.
27. Emery D.F.G., Clarke H.J., Grover M.L. Stanmore total hip replacement in younger patients - review of a group of patients under 50years of age at operation. J Bone Joint Surg-British Volume 1997, 79B(2):240-246.
28. Stolk J., et al. Finite element and experimental models of cemented hip joint reconstructions can produce similar bone and cement strains in pre-clinical tests. J Biomech 2002, 35(4):499-510.
29. Bergmann G., et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001, 34(7):859-871.
30. Kuiper J.H., Huiskes R. Numerical optimization of hip-prosthetic stem material. Recent Adv Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 1992, 76-84.
31. Waide V., Cristofolini L., Toni A. An experimental analogue to model the fibrous tissue layer in cemented hip replacements. J Biomed Mater Res, Part B-Appl Biomater 2004, 69B(2):232-240.
32. Stolk J., Verdonschot N., Huiskes R. Stair climbing is more detrimental to the cement in hip replacement than walking. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002, (405):294-305.
33. Ramos A., Fonseca F., Simoes J.A. Simulation of physiological loading in total hip replacements. J Biomech Eng-Trans ASME 2006, 128(4):579-587.
34. Mann K.A., Werner F.W., Ayers D.C. Mechanical strength of the cement-bone interface is greater in shear than in tension. J Biomech 1999, 32(11):1251-1254.
35. Lennon A.B., Prendergast P.J. Evaluation of cement stresses in finite element analyses of cemented orthopaedic implants. J Biomech Eng-Trans ASME 2001, 123(6):623-628.
36. Fernandes P. A contact model for bone remodeling on total hip arthroplasty. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng - 3 2001, 123-128.
37. Ramos A., Simoes J.A. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys 2006, 28(9):916-924.
38. Ramos A., Simoes J.A. CAD-CAM-RTV - lost-wax casting technology for medical implants. Rapid Prototyping J 2009, 15(3):211-215.
39. Lennon A.B., McCormack B.A.O., Prendergast P.J. The relationship between cement fatigue damage and implant surface finish in proximal femoral prostheses. Med Eng Phys 2003, 25(10):833-841.
40. Choi D., et al. In vitro measurement of interface micromotion and crack in cemented total hip arthroplasty systems with different surface roughness. Clin Biomech 2010, 25(1):50-55.
41. Lewis G. Fatigue testing and performance of acrylic bone-cement materials: state-of-the-art review. J Biom Mater Res, Part B-Appl Biomater 2003, 66B(1):457-486.
42. Lu Z., McKellop H. Effects of cement creep on stem subsidence and stresses in the cement mantle of a total hip replacement. J Biomedical Mater Res 1997, 34(2):221-226.