Biomechanical phenomena occurring at the bone–implant interface during the press-fit insertion of acetabular cup implants are still poorly understood. This article presents a nonlinear geometrical two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element model aiming at describing the biomechanical behavior of the acetabular cup implant as a function of the bone Young’s modulus Eb, the diametric interference fit (IF), and the friction coefficient µ. The numerical model was compared with experimental results obtained from an in vitro test, which allows to determine a reference configuration with the parameter set: μ*= 0.3, , and IF*= 1 mm for which the maximal contact pressure tN = 10.7 MPa was found to be localized at the peri-equatorial rim of the acetabular cavity. Parametric studies were carried out, showing that an optimal value of the pull-out force can be defined as a function of μ, Eb, and IF. For the reference configuration, the optimal pull-out force is obtained for μ= 0.6 (respectively, Eb = 0.35 GPa and IF = 1.4 mm). For relatively low value of µ (µ < 0.2), the optimal value of IF linearly increases as a function of µ independently of Eb, while for µ > 0.2, the optimal value of IF has a nonlinear dependence on µ and decreases as a function of Eb. The results can be used to help surgeons determine the optimal value of IF in a patient specific manner.
SunHInaokaHFukuokaY, et al. Range of motion measurement of an artificial hip joint using CT images. Med Biol Eng Comput2007; 45(12): 1229–1235.
2.
HsuJTLaiKAChenQ, et al. The relation between micromotion and screw fixation in acetabular cup. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2006; 84(1): 34–41.
3.
ToossiNAdeliBTimperleyAJ, et al. Acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: is there evidence that cementless fixation is better?J Bone Joint Surg Am2013; 95(2): 168–174.
4.
NguyenV-HRosiGNailiS, et al. Influence of anisotropic bone properties on the biomechanical behavior of the acetabular cup implant: a multiscale finite element study. Comput Method Biomec2017; 20(12): 1312–1325.
5.
JanssenDZwarteleREDoetsHC, et al. 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(1): 67–75.
6.
HothiHSBusfieldJJSheltonJC.Explicit finite element modelling of the impaction of metal press-fit acetabular components. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2011; 225(3): 303–314.
7.
Sotto-MaiorBSRochaEPde AlmeidaEO, et al. Influence of high insertion torque on implant placement: an anisotropic bone stress analysis. Braz Dent J2010; 21(6): 508–514.
8.
MathieuVVayronRRichardG, et al. Biomechanical determinants of the stability of dental implants: influence of the bone–implant interface properties. J Biomech2014; 47(1): 3–13.
9.
HaiatGWangHLBrunskiJ.Effects of biomechanical properties of the bone–implant interface on dental implant stability: from in silico approaches to the patient’s mouth. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2014; 16: 187–213.
10.
BranemarkPIHanssonBOAdellR, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl1977; 16: 1–132.
11.
AlbrektssonTBranemarkPIHanssonHA, et al. Osseointegrated titanium implants: requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand1981; 52(2): 155–170.
12.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Combined bone ingrowth and remodeling around uncemented acetabular component: a multiscale mechanobiology-based finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng2017; 139(9): 091007.
13.
Le CannSGallandARosaB, et al. Does surface roughness influence the primary stability of acetabular cups? A numerical and experimental biomechanical evaluation. Med Eng Phys2014; 36(9): 1185–1190.
14.
DammNBMorlockMMBishopNE.Friction coefficient and effective interference at the implant-bone interface. J Biomech2015; 48(12): 3517–3521.
15.
GoldmanAHArmstrongLCOwenJR, et al. Does increased coefficient of friction of highly porous metal increase initial stability at the acetabular interface?J Arthroplasty2016; 31(3): 721–726.
16.
Díaz-PérezFGarcía-NietoERosA, et al. Best estimation of spectrum profiles for diagnosing femoral prostheses loosening. Med Eng Phys2014; 36(2): 233–238.
17.
RiegerJSJaegerSSchuldC, et al. A vibrational technique for diagnosing loosened total hip endoprostheses: an experimental sawbone study. Med Eng Phys2013; 35(3): 329–337.
18.
GeorgiouAPCunninghamJL.Accurate diagnosis of hip prosthesis loosening using a vibrational technique. Clin Biomech2001; 16(4): 315–323.
19.
GoossensQLeuridanSHenyšP, et al. Development of an acoustic measurement protocol to monitor acetabular implant fixation in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a preliminary study. Med Eng Phys2017; 49: 28–38.
20.
MichelANguyenVBoscR, et al. Finite element model of the impaction of a press-fitted acetabular cup. Med Biol Eng Comput2017; 17: 781–791.
21.
MathieuVMichelA FlouzatLachanietteCH, et al. Variation of the impact duration during the in vitro insertion of acetabular cup implants. Med Eng Phys2013; 35(11): 1558–1563.
22.
MichelABoscRMathieuV, et al. Monitoring the press-fit insertion of an acetabular cup by impact measurements: influence of bone abrasion. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2014; 228(10): 1027–1034.
23.
MichelABoscRVayronR, et al. In vitro evaluation of the acetabular cup primary stability by impact analysis. J Biomech Eng2015; 137(3).
24.
MichelABoscRSailhanF, et al. Ex vivo estimation of cementless acetabular cup stability using an impact hammer. Med Eng Phys2016; 38(2): 80–86.
25.
MichelABoscRMeningaudJP, et al. Assessing the acetabular cup implant primary stability by impact analyses: a cadaveric study. PLoS ONE2016; 11(11): e0166778.
26.
TijouARosiGHernigouP, et al. Ex vivo evaluation of cementless acetabular cup stability using impact analyses with a hammer instrumented with strain sensors. Sensors2017; 18(1): E62.
27.
HsuJTChangCHHuangHL, et al. The number of screws, bone quality, and friction coefficient affect acetabular cup stability. Med Eng Phys2007; 29(10): 1089–1095.
28.
PhillipsATPankaj UsmaniASHowieCR.The effect of acetabular cup size on the short-term stability of revision hip arthroplasty: a finite element investigation. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218(4): 239–249.
29.
MaWZhangXWangJ, et al. Optimized design for a novel acetabular component with three wings: a study of finite element analysis. J Surg Res2013; 179(1): 78–86.
30.
GoebelPKluessDWiedingJ, et al. The influence of head diameter and wall thickness on deformations of metallic acetabular press-fit cups and UHMWPE liners: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Sci2013; 18(2): 264–270.
31.
DammakMShirazi-AdlASchwartzM, et al. Friction properties at the bone-metal interface: comparison of four different porous metal surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res1997; 35(3): 329–336.
32.
SpearsIRMorlockMMPfleidererM, et al. The influence of friction and interference on the seating of a hemispherical press-fit cup: a finite element investigation. J Biomech1999; 32(11): 1183–1189.
33.
SpearsIRPfleidererMSchneiderE, et al. The effect of interfacial parameters on cup-bone relative micromotions: a finite element investigation. J Biomech2001; 34(1): 113–120.
34.
YewAJinZMDonnA, et al. Deformation of press-fitted metallic resurfacing cups—part 2: finite element simulation. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2006; 220(2): 311–319.
35.
TaylorMPrendergastPJ.Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities?J Biomech2015; 48(5): 767–778.
36.
DalstraMHuiskesROdgaardA, et al. Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech1993; 26(4–5): 523–535.
37.
HenysPCapekL.Material model of pelvic bone based on modal analysis: a study on the composite bone. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2017; 16(1): 363–373.
38.
LebonFRaousM.Multibody contact problem including friction in structure assembly. Comput Struct1992; 43(5): 925–934.
39.
LaursenT.Computational contact and impact mechanics: fundamentals of modeling interfacial phenomena in nonlinear finite element analysis. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2003.
40.
KwongLMO’ConnorDOSedlacekRC, et al. A quantitative in vitro assessment of fit and screw fixation on the stability of a cementless hemispherical acetabular component. J Arthroplasty1994; 9(2): 163–170.
41.
MacdonaldWCarlssonLVCharnleyGJ, et al. Press-fit acetabular cup fixation: principles and testing. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine1999; 213(1): 33–39.
42.
BiemondJEAquariusRVerdonschotN, et al. Frictional and bone ingrowth properties of engineered surface topographies produced by electron beam technology. Arch Orthop Traum Su2011; 131(5): 711–718.
43.
Shirazi-AdlADammakMPaiementG.Experimental determination of friction characteristics at the trabecular bone/porous-coated metal interface in cementless implants. J Biomed Mater Res1993; 27(2): 167–175.
44.
AmiroucheFSolitroGBroviakS, et al. Factors influencing initial cup stability in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech2014; 29(10): 1177–1185.
45.
UdofiaILiuFJinZ, et al. The initial stability and contact mechanics of a press-fit resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. Bone Joint J2007; 89(4): 549–556.
46.
SchulzeCVogelDSanderM, et al. Calibration of crushable foam plasticity models for synthetic bone material for use in finite element analysis of acetabular cup deformation and primary stability. Comput Method Biomec2019; 22(1): 25–37.
47.
AndersonMJWhitcombPJ.DOE simplified: practical tools for effective experimentation. New York: Productivity Press, 2016.
