Purpose: Dynamic hip screw (DHS) plate fabrication has a crucial role in success rate of surgeries for fractures of the proximal femur. Our research focuses on comparing microstructure and mechanical properties of DHS plates fabricated through two distinct processes. We aimed to compare the mechanical cold-worked (CW) DHS plate versus a DHS plate that fabricated through the cold-worked hot-forged (CWH) DHS plate. Methods: The CW and CWH DHS plates had similar topology, however, tested under different loading scenarios. To make the results comparable, the test for the CW DHS plate was simulated and validated utilizing the finite element modeling (FEM) approach. Then, the model (i.e., the CW DHS plate) was analyzed applying the loading scenario of the CWH DHS plate test. Finally, the results of the FEM analysis for CW and the actual test for CWH DHS plates including compression bending stiffness/strength and proof load were compared. Furthermore, the chemical combination of the two plates was analyzed to investigate if they meet the requirements for ASTM F138 standard. Results: Our analysis showed the amount of “Proof Load” and “Compression Bending Strength” of the CWH DHS plate significantly improved by ∼87% in comparison with the CW DHS plate that both fabricated with ASTM F138 material. On comparison between their grain sizes, the CWH DHS plate has a finer grain size (∼55% smaller than CW DHS plate) which leads to larger yield stress. Conclusion: Although the cold-working process according to ASTM F138 leads to enhance the mechanical performance of a DHS plate, adding hot-forging to the process improved the mechanical performance of DHS plate. The outcome of this study could facilitate the development of the optimal fabrication process for surgical implants which in turn will increase the long-term success rate of the relevant surgeries.
ChangCWChenYNLiCT, et al.Role of the compression screw in the dynamic hip-screw system: a finite-element study. Med Eng Phys2015; 37: 1174–1179. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.10.001.
2.
NelsonKJLaughlinMDBerry-CabanCS. Sliding hip screw for fixation of fracture through a previously arthrodesed hip. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev2019; 3: e065. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-17-00065.
3.
RegazzoniPRüediTWinquistR, et al.The dynamic hip screw implant system. Berlin, Geramany: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
4.
NicaMCretuBEneD, et al.Failure analysis of retrieved osteosynthesis implants. Materials (Basel)2020: 13: 1201. DOI: 10.3390/ma13051201.
5.
RubenRBFernandesPRFolgadoJ. On the optimal shape of hip implants. J Biomech2012; 45: 239–246.
6.
ShahRGashiBHoqueS, et al.Enhancing mechanical and biomedical properties of protheses-surface and material design. Surf Interfaces2021; 27: 101498.
7.
RyuH-SNamgungCLeeJ-H, et al.The influence of thread geometry on implant osseointegration under immediate loading: a literature review. J Adv Prosthodont2014; 6: 547–554.
8.
ŞensoyATÇolakMKaymazI, et al.Optimal material selection for total hip implant: a finite element case study. Arabian J Sci Eng2019; 44: 10293–10301.
9.
ASTM F138-19. Standard specification for wrought 18 chromium-14 nickel-2.5 molybdenum stainless steel bar and wire for surgical implants (UNS S31673), Feb 26, 2020. https://www.astm.org/f0138-19.html
10.
LiuYZhuDPierreD, et al.Fretting initiated crevice corrosion of 316LVM stainless steel in physiological phosphate buffered saline: potential and cycles to initiation. Acta Biomater2019; 97: 565–577.
11.
AhirwarHZhouYMahapatraC, et al.Materials for orthopedic bioimplants: modulating degradation and surface modification using integrated nanomaterials. Coatings2020; 10: 264.
12.
BhatSV. Biomaterials. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, p. 265.
13.
JuniorWCDSDe SouzaCMPBortoliFDS, et al.Obtaining the predicted number of cycles of femoral prosthesis manufactured with ASTM F138 and ASTM F75 aloys, applying the method of finite element. In: Journal of physics: conference series 2021. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing, 2021, p. 012026.
14.
de OliveiraRKCorreaOVde OliveiraMCL, et al.Surface chemistry and semiconducting properties of passive film and corrosion resistance of annealed surgical stainless steel. J Mater Eng Perform2020; 29: 6085–6100.
15.
PagliettiA. Plasticity of cold worked metals: a deductive approach. Billerica, MA: WIT Press, 2007.
16.
ChenBRoyKUzzamanA, et al.Axial strength of back-to-back cold-formed steel channels with edge-stiffened holes, un-stiffened holes and plain webs. J Constr Steel Res2020; 174: 106313.
17.
RoyKLauHHTingTCH, et al.Flexural capacity of gapped built-up cold-formed steel channel sections including web stiffeners. J Constr Steel Res2020; 172: 106154.
18.
YadavHKBallalARThawreMM, et al.Recovery and recrystallisation during creep exposure of cold worked Ti-modified 14Cr–15Ni austenitic stainless steel. Mater High Temp2020; 37: 221–229. DOI: 10.1080/09603409.2020.1754040.
19.
TalhaMMaYLinY, et al.Corrosion performance of cold deformed austenitic stainless steels for biomedical applications. Corros Rev2019; 37: 283–306.
ASTM E1086-14. Standard test method for analysis of austenitic stainless steel by spark atomic emission spectrometry, Dec 27, 2016. https://www.astm.org/e1086-14.html
22.
HusainALaPHongzhengY, et al.Molecular dynamics as a means to investigate grain size and strain rate effect on plastic deformation of 316 L nanocrystalline stainless-steel. Materials (Basel)2020; 13: 2020. DOI: 10.3390/ma13143223.
23.
El-MahallawiIShashA. Mechanical properties and wear resistance of semisolid cast Al 2 O 3 nano reinforced hypo and hyper-eutectic Al–Si composites. In: Properties and characterization of modern materials. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2017, pp. 13–30.
24.
ASTM E112-13. Standard test methods for determining average grain size. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2021.
25.
OdnobokovaMBelyakovAKaibyshevR. Grain refinement and strengthening of austenitic stainless steels during large strain cold rolling. Philos Mag2018; 99: 531–556. DOI: 10.1080/14786435.2018.1546961.
26.
GuillenDPPaganDCGettoEM, et al.In situ tensile study of PM-HIP and wrought 316 L stainless steel and Inconel 625 alloys with high energy diffraction microscopy. Mater Sci Eng A2018; 738: 380–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2018.09.083.
27.
RoyKLauHHTingTCH, et al.Experiments and finite element modelling of screw pattern of self-drilling screw connections for high strength cold-formed steel. Thin-Walled Struct2019; 145: 106393.
28.
RoyKMohammadjaniCLimJB. Experimental and numerical investigation into the behaviour of face-to-face built-up cold-formed steel channel sections under compression. Thin-Walled Struct2019; 134: 291–309.
29.
RaffaMLNguyenV-HHernigouP, et al.Stress shielding at the bone-implant interface: influence of surface roughness and of the bone-implant contact ratio. J Orthop Res2021; 39: 1174–1183.
30.
PetersonJMChlebekCCloughAM, et al.Stiffness matters: part I—the effects of plate stiffness on the biomechanics of ACDF: in vitro. Spine2018; 43: E1061–E1068.
31.
ChenXLiJChengX, et al.Effect of heat treatment on microstructure, mechanical and corrosion properties of austenitic stainless steel 316L using arc additive manufacturing. Mater Sci Eng A2018; 715: 307–314. DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2017.10.002.
32.
MuleySVVidvansANChaudhariGP, et al.An assessment of ultrafine grained 316L stainless steel for implant applications. Acta Biomater2016; 30: 408–419.
33.
OdnobokovaMKipelovaABelyakovA, et al.Microstructure evolution in a 316L stainless steel subjected to multidirectional forging and unidirectional bar rolling. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing, 2014, p. 012060.
34.
SantosGAFigueiredoWSchmittYP, et al.Study on closed-die forging in stainless steel as standard ASTM F138 in grain size function. In: Engineering design applications II. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2020, pp. 133–153.
