The failure mechanisms of acetabular prostheses may be investigated by understanding the changes in load transfer due to implantation and using the analysis of the implant–bone micromotion. Computational finite element (FE) models allow detailed mechanical analysis of the implant–bone structure, but their validity must be assessed as a first step, before they can be employed in preclinical investigations. In this study, FE models of composite hemi-pelvises, intact and implanted with an acetabular cup, were experimentally validated. Strains and implant–bone micromotions in the hemi-pelvises were compared with those predicted by the equivalent FE models. Regression analysis indicated close agreement between the measured and FE strains, with a high correlation coefficient (0.95–0.98), a low standard error (SE) (36–53 µε) and a low error in regression slope (7%–11%). Measured micromotions along three orthogonal directions were small, less than 30 µm, whereas the FE-predicted values were found to be less than 85 µm. Although the trends were similar, the deviations are due to artefacts in experimental measurement and additional imperfections in recreating experimental loading and boundary conditions in the FE model. This supports the FE model as a valid predictor of the measured strain in the composite pelvis models, confirming its suitability for further computational investigations on acetabular prostheses.
National Joint Registry for England and Wales 7th Annual Report, Hemel Hempstead, UK: NJR, 2010.
2.
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report, Adelaide: AOA, 2008.
3.
SchulteKRCallaghanJJKelleySS. The outcome of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty year follow-up – the results of one surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am1993; 75: 961–975.
4.
ManleyMTCapelloWND’AntonioJA. Fixation of acetabular cups without cement in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998; 80: 1175–1185.
5.
DalstraMHuiskesRVan ErningL. Development and validation of a three dimensional finite element model of the pelvic bone. J Biomech Eng1995; 117: 272–278.
6.
GuptaSVan Der HelmFCTSterkJC. Development and experimental validation of a three dimensional finite element model of the human scapula. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218: 127–142.
7.
AndersonAEPetersCLTuttleBD. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation, sensitive studies. J Biomech Eng2005; 127: 364–373.
8.
PapiniMZderoRSchemitschEH. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs and synthetic femurs. J Biomech Eng2007; 129: 12–19.
9.
DavisETOlsenMZderoR. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng2009; 131: 041002 (1 - 8).
10.
ZhangQHWangJYLuptonC. A subject-specific pelvic bone model and its application to cemented acetabular replacements. J Biomech2010; 43: 2722–2727.
11.
PalBGuptaSNewAMR. Strain and micromotion in intact and resurfaced composite femurs: experimental and numerical investigations. J Biomech2010; 43: 1923–1930.
12.
AndersonAEEllisBJWeissJA. Verification, validation and sensitivity studies in computational biomechanics. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2007; 10: 171–184.
13.
LionbergerDWalkerPSGranholmJ. Effect of prosthetic acetabular replacement on strains in the pelvis. J Orthop Res1985; 3: 372–379.
14.
MilesAWMcNameePB. Strain gauge and photoelastic evaluation of the load transfer in the pelvis in total hip replacement: the effect of the position of the axis of the rotation. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine1989; 203: 103–107.
15.
MassinPVandenbusscheELandjeritB. Experimental study of periacetabular deformations before and after implantation of hip prosthesis. J Biomech1996; 29: 53–61.
16.
VicecontiMBrusiGPancantiA. Primary stability of an anatomical cementless hip stem: a statistical analysis. J Biomech2006; 39: 1169–1179.
17.
RamamurtiBSOrrTEBragdonCR. Factors influencing stability at the interface between a porous surface and cancellous bone: a finite element analysis of a canine in-vivo micromotion experiment. J Biomed Mater Res1997; 36: 274–280.
18.
JastyMBragdonCBurkeD. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79: 707–714.
19.
KienapfelHSpreyCWilkeA. Implant fixation by bone ingrowth. J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 355–368.
20.
GotzeCSteensWVeithV. Primary stability in cementless femoral stems: custom made versus conventional femoral prosthesis. Clin Biomech2002; 17: 267–273.
21.
MaherSAPrendergastPJLyonsCG. Measurement of migration of a cemented hip prosthesis in an in vitro test. Clin Biomech2001; 16: 307–314.
22.
MaherSAPrendergastPJ. Discriminating the loosening behaviour of cemented hip prostheses using measurement of migration and inducible displacement. J Biomech2002; 35: 257–267.
23.
CristofoliniLTeutonicoSAMontiL. Comparative in vitro study on the long term performance of cemented hip stem: validation of protocol to discriminate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ design. J Biomech2003; 36: 1603–1615.
24.
CristofoliniLVariniEVicecontiM. In-vitro method for assessing femoral implant-bone micromotions in resurfacing hip implants under different loading conditions. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2007; 221: 943–950.
25.
Abdul KadirMRHansenUKlabundeR. Finite element modeling of primary hip stem stability: the effect of interference fit. J Biomech2008; 41: 587–594.
26.
ChongDYRHansenUNAmisAA. Analysis of bone-prosthesis interface micromotion for cementless tibial prosthesis fixation and the influence of loading conditions. J Biomech2010; 43: 1074–1080.
27.
SpearsIRPfleidererMSchneiderE. The effect of interfacial parameters on cup-bone relative micromotions: a finite element investigation. J Biomech2001; 34: 113–120.
28.
OngKLLehmanJNotzWI. Acetabular cup geometry and bone-implant interface have more influence on initial periprosthetic joint space than joint loading and surgical cup insertion. J Biomech Eng2006; 128: 169–175.
29.
JanssenDZwarteleREDoetsHC. Computational assessment of press-fit acetabular implant fixation: the effect of implant design, interference fit, bone quality, and frictional properties. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224: 65–75.
30.
StolkJVerdonschotNCristofoliniL. Finite element and experimental model of cemented hip joint reconstructions can produce similar bone and cement strains in pre-clinical tests. J Biomech2002; 35: 499–510.
31.
WaideDCristofoliniLStolkJ. Experimental investigations of bone remodelling using composite femurs. Clin Biomech2003; 18: 523–536.
32.
CristofoliniLEraniPJuszczykEB. Effect of undersizing on the long-term stability of the Exeter hip stem: a comparative in vitro study. Clin Biomech2010; 25: 899–908.
33.
GrantJABishopNEGotzenN. Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: the implant bone interface. J Biomech2007; 40: 1158–1164.
34.
BollandBJRFNewAMRMadabhushiSPG. Vibration assisted bone-graft compaction in impaction bone grafting of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 686–692.
35.
BougheraraHZderoRMahboobZ. The biomechanics of a validated finite element model of stress shielding in a novel hybrid total knee replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224: 1209–1219.
36.
GroverPAlbertCWangM. Mechanical characterization of fourth generation composite humerus. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2011; 225: 1169–1176.
37.
KaiserMMWesselLMZachertG. Biomechanical analysis of a synthetic femur spiral fracture model: influence of different materials on the stiffness in flexible intramedullary nailing. Clin Biomech2011; 26: 592–597.
38.
FottnerASchmidMBirkenmaierC. Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to trust plate prosthesis by three dimensional measurement of micromotion. Clin Biomech2009; 24: 429–434.
39.
LewinnekGELewisJLTarrR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60: 217–220.
40.
DalstraMHuiskesR. Load transfer across the pelvis bone. J Biomech1995; 28: 715–724.
41.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerM. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001; 34: 859–871.
42.
SpearsIRPfleidererMSchneiderE. Interfacial conditions between a press-fit acetabular cup and bone during daily activities: implications for achieving bone in-growth. J Biomech2000; 33: 1471–1477.
43.
VicecontiMMucciniRBernakiewiczM. Large-sliding contact elements accurately predict levels of bone-implant micromotion relevant to osseointegration. J Biomech2000; 33: 1611–1618.
44.
TaddeiFCristofoliniLMartelliS. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech2006; 39: 2457–2465.
45.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res1999; 8: 135–160.
46.
LinL. Overview in agreement statistics for medical devices. J Biopharm Stat2007; 18: 126–144.
47.
SchileoETaddeiFMalandrinoA. Subject specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech2007; 40: 2982–2989.
48.
WrightJMPellicciPMSalvatiEA. Bone density adjacent to press-fit acetabular components: a prospective analysis with quantitative computer tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83: 529–536.
49.
LaursenMBNielsenPTSoballeK. Bone remodeling around HA coated acetabular cup. Int Orthop2007; 31: 199–204.
50.
ThompsonMSNorthmore-BallMDTannerKE. Effect of acetabular resurfacing component material and fixation on the strain distribution in the pelvis. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2002; 216: 237–245.
51.
ManleyMTOngKLKurtzSM. The potential for bone loss in acetabular structures following THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 453: 246–253.
52.
BesongAALeeRFarrarR. Contact mechanics of a novel metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2001; 215: 543–548.
53.
UdofiaIJYewAJinJM. Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218: 293–305.
54.
TaralaMJanssenDTelkaA. Experimental versus computational analysis of micromotions at the implant–bone interface. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2011; 225: 8–15.
55.
MontiLCristofoliniLVicecontiM. Methods for quantitative analysis of the primary stability in uncemented hip prostheses. Artif Organs1999; 23: 851–859.
EberleSGerberCVon OldenburgG. A biomechanical evaluation of orthopaedic implants for hip fractures by finite element analysis and in-vitro tests. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224: 1141–1152.
