Intimate knowledge of the biomechanics of a given individual hip joint provides a potential advantage during the planning of total hip arthroplasty, and would thus have a positive influence over the outcome of such an intervention. In current clinical practise, the surgical planning is based solely on the status of the individual hip and its radiographic appearance. However, additional information could be gathered from the radiography to be used as input data for biomechanical models aimed at calculating the resultant force FR within the hip joint.
An investigation of the biomechanical models by Pauwels, Debrunner and Iglič was performed, where the magnitude of FR calculated by the models showed a favourable comparison to the in-vivo data from instrumented prostheses by Bergmann. The Blumentritt model returned abnormally high results. The computational results showed large variations for FR orientation, which tends to depend more on the model used than on patient-specific parameters.
Furthermore, a discrepancy was found between the data gathered from instrumented prostheses and the Standing Human Model within the ‘AnyBody Modeling System™’ software by AnyBody Tech. Additionally, the variations in inter-rater and intra-rater errors made while localizing radiographic landmarks were analysed with respect to their influence on Babisch-Layher-Blumentritt (BLB)-scoring using the Blumentritt hip model.
YoshidaHFaustAWilckensJ. Three-dimensional dynamic hip contact area and pressure distribution during activities of daily living. J Biomech2006; 39(11): 1996–2004.
2.
CrowninshieldRDJohnstonRCAndrewsJG. A biomechanical investigation of the human hip. J Biomech1978; 11(1–2): 75–77.
3.
HashimotoNAndoMYayamaT. Dynamic analysis of the resultant force acting on the hip joint during level walking. Artif Organs2005; 29(5): 387–392.
HellerMOBergmannGKassiJ-P. Determination of muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing. J Biomech2005; 38(5): 1155–1163.
6.
O’TooleRVJaramazBDiGioiaAM. Biomechanics for preoperative planning and surgical simulations in orthopaedics. Computers Bio Med1995; 25(2): 183–191.
7.
DavyDTKotzarGMBrownRH. Telemetric force measurements across the hip after total arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1988; 70(1): 45–50.
8.
BrandRAPedersenDRDavyDT. Comparison of hip force calculations and measurements in the same patient. J Arthroplasty1994; 9(1): 45–51.
9.
BergmannGGraichenFRohlmannA. Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech1993; 26(8): 969–990.
10.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerM. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001; 34(7): 859–871.
11.
HellerMOSchroederJHMatziolisG. Musculoskeletal load analysis. A biomechanical explanation for clinical results–and more?Orthopaede2007; 36(3): 190–188.
12.
RohrleHScholtenRSigolottoC. Joint forces in the human pelvis-leg skeleton during walking. J Biomech1984; 17(6): 409–424.
13.
PedersenDRBrandRADavyDT. Pelvic muscle and acetabular contact forces during gait. J Biomech1997; 30(9): 959–965.
14.
SeiregAArvikarRJ. The prediction of muscular load sharing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. J Biomech1975; 8(2): 89–102.
15.
JohnstonRCBrandRACrowninshieldRD. Reconstruction of the hip. a mathematical approach to determine optimum geometric relationships. J Bone Joint Surg Am1979; 61(5): 639–652.
PauwelsF. Atlas zur Biomechanik der gesunden und kranken Huefte – Prinzipien, Technik und Resultate einer kausalen Therapie. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer Verlag, 1973.
18.
PauwelsF. Die Bedeutung der Muskelkraefte fuer die Regelung der Beanspruchung des Roehrenknochens waehrend der Bewegung der Glieder. Anatomy and Embryology1951; 115: 327–351.
19.
PauwelsF. Die Bedeutung der Bauprinzipien der unteren Extremitaet fuer die Beanspruchung des Beinskeletes. Anatomy and Embryology1950; 114: 525–538.
20.
PauwelsF. Die Bedeutung der Bauprinzipien des Stuetz-und Bewegungsapparates fuer die Beanspruchung der Roehrenknochen. Anatomy and Embryology1948; 114: 129–166.
21.
BrinckmannPFrobinWHierholzerE. Stress on the articular surface of the hip joint in healthy adults and persons with idiopathic osteoarthrosis of the hip joint. J Biomech1981; 14(3): 149–156.
22.
BlumentrittS. The relationship between the gait of humans and the hip joint structure in the frontal plane. Gegenbaurs Morphol Jahrb1990; 136(6): 677–693.
23.
DebrunnerHU. Biomechanics of the hip joint. I. A new model for the calculation of the forces in the hip joint. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb1975; 113(3): 377–388.
BlumentrittS. Biomechanische Bauprinzipien des menschlichen Hueftgelenkes in der Frontalebene. Gegenbaurs morphol Jahrb Leipzig1988; 134: 221–240.
26.
HamacherPRoeslerH. Results of calculations on the size and direction of resultant hip-joint forces for the individual case. Arch Orthop Unfallchir1972; 72(1): 94–106.
27.
HamacherPRoeslerH. Die Berechnung von Groeße und Richtung der Hueftgelenksresultierenden im Einzelfall. Archives of Orthopae Trauma Surg1971; 70(1): 26–35.
28.
KummerB. Biomechanical principles of the statics of the hip joint. critical appraisal of a new theory. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb1986; 124(2): 179–187.
29.
KummerB. Die Beanspruchung des menschlichen Hueftgelenks. Anatomy and Embryology1968; 127(4): 277–28.
30.
KummerB. The clinical relevance of biomechanical analysis of the hip area. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb1991; 129(4): 285–294.
31.
MoeserMHeinW. Kraefte an der Huefte – Das Untergurtmodell Teil 1: Kritik am Pauwels-Modell – der Zweibeinstand. Beitr Orthop Traumatol1987; 34(2): 83–92.
32.
MoeserMHeinW. Kraefte an der Huefte – Das Untergurtmodell Teil 2: Der Einbeinstand. das Turmkranprinzip. Beitr Orthop Traumatol1987; 34(4): 179–189.
33.
TschaunerCHofmannSCzernyC. Hip dysplasia. Morphology, biomechanics and therapeutic principles with reference to the acetabular labrum. Orthopaede1997; 26(1): 89–108.
34.
PaulJP. Biomechanics. The biomechanics of the hip-joint and its clinical relevance. Proc R Soc Med1966; 59(10): 943–948.
35.
PaulJP. Force actions transmitted by joints in the human body. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci1976; 192(1107): 163–172.
36.
MaquetP. Biomechanics of hip dysplasia. Acta Orthop Belg1999; 65(3): 302–314.
37.
GendaEIwasakiNLiG. Normal hip joint contact pressure distribution in single-leg standing - effect of gender and anatomic parameters. J Biomech2001; 34(7): 895–905.
38.
BrandRA. Hip osteotomies: A biomechanical consideration. J Am Acad Orthop Surg1997; 5(5): 282–291.
39.
IgličAKralj-IgličVDanielM. Computer determination of contact stress distribution and size of weight bearing area in the human hip joint. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engng2002; 5(2): 185–192.
40.
DostalWFAndrewsJG. A three-dimensional biomechanical model of hip musculature. J Biomech1981; 14(11): 803–807.
BabischJLayherFAmiotLP. The rationale tilt of tilt-adjusted acetabular cup navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 357–365.
45.
WirthCJZichnerLTschaunerC. Orthopaedie und Orthopaedische Chirurgie – Becken, Huefte. Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, 2004.
46.
EnglishTAKilvingtonM. In vivo records of hip loads using a femoral implant with telemetric output (a preliminary report). J Biomed Eng1979; 1(2): 111–115.
47.
HodgeWACarlsonKLFijanRS. Contact pressures from an instrumented hip endoprosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am1989; 71(9): 1378–1386.
48.
KotzarGMDavyDTGoldbergVM. Telemeterized in vivo hip joint force data: a report on two patients after total hip surgery. J Orthop Res1991; 9(5): 621–633.
49.
TaylorSJPerryJSMeswaniaJM. Telemetry of forces from proximal femoral replacements and relevance to fixation. J Biomech1997; 30(3): 225–234.
50.
TaylorSJWalkerPSPerryJS. The forces in the distal femur and the knee during walking and other activities measured by telemetry. J Arthroplasty1998; 13(4): 428–437.
51.
BombelliR. Osteoarthritis of the hip – Classification and pathogenesis – The role of osteotomy as a consequent therapy. 2nd ed.Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer Verlag, 1983.
52.
StansfieldBWNicolA.C. Hip joint contact forces in normal subjects and subjects with total hip prostheses: walking and stair and ramp negotiation. Clin Biomech2002; 17(2): 130–139.
53.
StansfieldBWNicolACPaulJP. Direct comparison of calculated hip joint contact forces with those measured using instrumented implants. an evaluation of a three-dimensional mathematical model of the lower limb. J Biomech2003; 36(7): 929–936.
54.
HenningerHBReeseSPAndersonAE. Validation of computational models in biomechanics. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224(7): 801–812.
55.
EschweilerJFietenLBeleiP. A comparison of different biomechanical hip-models. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of CAOS international, 2010, pp.518–521.
56.
EschweilerJFietenLBeleiP. Vergleichende Analyse bekannter biomechanischer Hueftmodelle. Biomedizinische Technik2010; 55(Sup1): Jahrestagung Biomedizinische Technik, Walter de Gruyter.
57.
EschweilerJFietenLSchmidtF. Comparison of the orientation of the resultant force of different biomechanical hip models. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of CAOS international, London, 2011.
58.
DelpSLMaloneyW. Effects of hip center location on the moment-generating capacity of the muscles. J Biomech1993; 26(4–5): 485–499.
59.
LengsfeldMBassalyABoudriotU. Size and direction of hip joint forces associated with various positions of the acetabulum. J Arthroplasty2000; 15(3): 314–320.
60.
AmankwahKTrioloRKirschRAuduM. A model-based study of passive joint properties on muscle effort during static stance. Journal of Biomechanics. 2006; 39(12): 2253–2263.
61.
RasmussenJ. Musculoskeletal analysis of navigated total hip arthroplasty. Bonezone2009; 8(3): 86–89.
62.
Dell’AnnaJFietenLEschweilerJ. Sensitivity analysis of a biomechanical score for cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of CAOS international, 2010, pp.364–366.
63.
BabischJLayherFVenbrocksR. Computer assisted planning and navigation using the Navitrack and MediCAD. In: SystemNavigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer Edition, 2004.
64.
FietenLEschweilerJKabirK. Reliability of mental 2d/3d matching for 3d cup positioning based on pre-operative 2d planning in defect hips. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of CAOS international, London, 2011.
65.
Dell’AnnaJFietenJEschweilerJ. Sensitivitaetsanalyse eines biomechanischen Scores zur Pfannenpositionierung bei einer totalen Hueft-Arthroplastie. Biomedizinische Technik2010; 55(Sup1): Jahrestagung Biomedizinische Technik, Walter de Gruyter.
66.
SaundersJBInmanVTEberhardtHD. The major determinants in normal and pathological gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am1953; 35-A(3): 543–558.
67.
FietenLEschweilerJKabirK. 2D vs. 3D landmark localization for cup positioning in THR based on biomechanical hip models. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual meeting of CAOS international. London, 2011.
68.
BergmannGGraichenFRohlmannA. Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langenbecks Arch Surg2004; 389: 53–59.
69.
ThomasWSchugM. Significance of the position of the endoprosthesis acetabular cup from the biomechanical and clinical viewpoint–recommendations for a classification. Biomed Tech (Berl)1994; 39(9): 222–226.
