In this article, a subject-specific finite element analysis has been developed to study a clinical case of a surgically misaligned hip prosthesis with an ultrashort stem. It was set out to study the strain energy density pattern, comparing the results obtained with computed tomography images. The authors developed two other numerical models: the first one analyzes the stress and strain distributions in the healthy femur (without prosthesis) and the second one analyzes the same boneimplant biomechanical system of the clinical case but assuming the prosthesis in the proper position. The misaligned prosthesis produced an overload at the proximal posterior plane of the femur, as confirmed by computed tomography images, which detect the formation of new bone. The numerical model of the correctly positioned prosthesis demonstrated that the bone is not overloaded and that the position of neutral axis does not significantly shift from the physiological condition.
EnghCABobynJDGlassmanAH. Porous coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br1987; 69: 45–55.
2.
SchmidtRMuellerLNowakTE. Clinical outcome and periprosthetic bone remodelling of an uncemented femoral component with taper design. Int Orthop2003; 27: 204–207.
3.
CouteauBHobathoMCDarmanaR. Finite element modelling of the vibrational behaviour of the human femur using CT-based individualized geometrical and material properties. J Biomech1998; 31: 383–386.
4.
RhoJYHobathoMCAshmanRB. Relation of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys1995; 17: 347–355.
5.
TaylorWRRolandEPloegH. Determination of orthotropic bone elastic constants using FEA and modal analysis. J Biomech2002; 35: 767–773.
6.
LittleJPTaddeiFVicecontiM. Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: response to physiological loads. Clin Biomech2007; 22: 440–448.
7.
PengLBaiJZengX. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys2006; 28: 227–233.
8.
SchileoETaddeiFMalandrinoA. Subject specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech2007; 40: 2982–2989.
9.
TaddeiFCristofoliniLMartelliS. Subject-specific finite element models of long bones: an in vitro evaluation of the overall accuracy. J Biomech2006; 39: 2457–2467.
10.
O’ReillyMAWhyneCM. Comparison of computed tomography based parametric and patient-specific finite element models of the healthy and metastatic spine using a mesh-morphing algorithm. Spine2008; 33: 1876–1881.
11.
SchmidtHHeuerFSimonU. Application of a new calibration method for a three-dimensional finite element model of a human lumbar annulus fibrosus. Clin Biomech2006; 21: 337–344.
12.
AndersonAEPetersCLTuttleBD. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation and sensitivity studies. J Biomech Eng2005; 127: 364–373.
13.
BarkerDSNetherwayDJKrishnanJ. Validation of a finite element model of the human metacarpal. Med Eng Phys2005; 27: 103–113.
14.
TrabelsiNYosibashZMilgromC. Validation of subject-specific automated p-FE analysis of the proximal femur. J Biomech2009; 42: 234–241.
15.
YosibashZPadanRJoskowiczL. A CT-based high-order finite element analysis of the human proximal femur compared to in-vitro experiments. J Biomech Eng2007; 129: 297–309.
16.
BitsakosCKernerJFisherI. The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur. J Biomech2005; 38: 133–139.
17.
SchmitzMJCliftSETaylorWR. Investigating the effect of remodelling signal type on the finite element based predictions of bone remodelling around the thrust plate prosthesis: a patient-specific comparison. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218: 417–424.
18.
ShangYBaiJPengL. The effects of the spatial influence function on orthotropic femur remodelling. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2008; 222: 601–609.
19.
KuiperJHHuiskesR. The predictive value of stress shielding for quantification of adaptive bone resorption around hip replacements. J Biomech Eng1997; 119: 228–231.
20.
HuiskesRWeinansHvan RietbergenB. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res1992; 274: 124–134.
21.
MartelliSTaddeiFSchileoE. Biomechanical robustness of a new proximal epiphyseal hip replacement to patient variability and surgical uncertainties: a FE study. Med Eng Phys2012; 34: 161–171.
22.
ZanettiEMCrupiVBignardiC. Radiograph-based femur morphing method. Med Biol Eng Comput2005; 43: 181–188.
23.
RadcliffeIAJTaylorM. Investigation into the effect of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis. Clin Biomech2007; 22: 780–786.
24.
ReggianiBCristofoliniLVariniE. Predicting the subject-specific primary stability of cementless implants during pre-operative planning: preliminary validation of subject-specific finite-element models. J Biomech2007; 40: 2552–2558.
25.
VicecontiMCasaliMMassariB. The “Standardized femur program” proposal for a reference geometry to be used for the creation of finite element models of the femur. J Biomech1996; 29: 1241.
26.
TaddeiFMartelliSReggianiB. Finite-element modelling of bones from CT data: sensitivity to geometry and material uncertainties. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2006; 53: 2194–2200.
27.
PolgarKGillHSVicecontiM. Strain distribution within the human femur due to physiological and simplified loading: finite element analysis using the muscle standardized femur model. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2003; 217: 173–189.
28.
RubinPJRakotomananaRLLeyvrazPF. Frictional interface micromotions and anisotropic stress distribution in a femoral total hip component. J Biomech1993; 26: 725–739.
29.
CrupiVGuglielminoELa RosaG. Numerical analysis of bone adaptation around an oral implant due to overload stress. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218: 407–415.
30.
TaylorMTannerKEFreemanMAR. Cancellous bone stresses surrounding the femoral component of a hip prosthesis: an elastic-plastic finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys1995; 17: 544–550.
31.
CristofoliniLVicecontiMToniA. Influence of thigh muscles on the axial strains in a proximal femur during early stance in gait. J Biomech1995; 28: 617–624.
32.
DudaGNHellerMAlbingerJ. Influence of muscles on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech1998; 31: 841–846.
33.
RenkawitzTSantoriFSGrifkaJ. A new short uncemented, proximally fixed anatomic femoral implant with a prominent lateral flare: design rationals and study design of an international clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2008; 9: 147–152.
34.
ReillyDTBursteinAH. The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue. J Biomech1975; 8: 393–405.
35.
KimYHChoiYKimJS. Comparison of bone mineral density changes around short, metaphyseal-fitting, and conventional cementless anatomical femoral components. J Arthroplasty2011; 26: 931–940.
36.
McNamaraBPCristofoliniLToniA. Relationship between bone-prosthesis bonding and load transfer in total hip reconstruction. J Biomech1997; 30: 621–630.
37.
WhitesideLAWhiteSEMcCarthyDS. Effect of neck resection on torsional stability of cementless total hip replacement. Am J Orthop1995; 24: 766–770.
38.
KimYHKimJSJooJH. A prospective short-term outcome study of a short metaphyseal fitting total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 88–94.
