The stem–bone interface of cementless total hip arthroplasty undergoes an adaptive process of bone ingrowth until the two parts become osseointegrated. Another important phenomenon associated with aseptic loosening of hip stem is stress-shielding induced adverse bone remodelling. The objective of this study was to preclinically assess the relative performances of two distinct designs of hip stems by addressing the combined effect of bone remodelling and osseointegration, based on certain rule-based criteria obtained from the literature. Premised upon non-linear finite element analyses of patient-specific implanted femur models, the study attempts to ascertain in silico outcome of the hip stem designs based on an evolutionary interfacial condition, and to further comment on the efficacy of the rule-based technique on the prediction of peri-prosthetic osseointegration. One of the two hip stem models was a trade-off design obtained from an earlier shape optimization study, and the other was based on TriLock stem (DePuy). Both designs predicted similar long-term osseointegration (∼89% surface), although trade-off stem predicted higher post-operative osseointegration. Proximal bone resorption was found higher for TriLock (by ∼110%) as compared to trade-off model. The rule-based technique predicted clinically coherent osseointegration around both stems and appears to be an alternative to expensive mechanobiology-based schemes.
LintnerFZweymullerKBrandG.Tissue reactions to titanium endoprostheses. Autopsy studies in four cases. J Arthroplasty1986; 1(3): 183–195.
2.
KienapfelHSpreyCWilkeA, et al. Implant fixation by bone ingrowth. J Arthroplasty1999; 14(3): 355–368.
3.
CallaghanJJFulghumCSGlissonRR, et al. The effect of femoral stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented porous-coated total hip prostheses. Comparison of straight-stem and curved-stem designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am1992; 74(6): 839–848.
4.
ManleyPAVanderbyRKohlesS, et al. Alterations in femoral strain, micromotion, cortical geometry, cortical porosity, and bony ingrowth in uncemented collared and collarless prostheses in the dog. J Arthroplasty1995; 10(1): 63–73.
5.
SpearsIRPeidererMSchneiderE, et al. Interfacial conditions between a press-fit acetabular cup and bone during daily activities: implications for achieving bone in-growth. J Biomech2000; 33(11): 1471–1477.
6.
PilliarRMLeeJMManiatopoulosC.Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986; 208: 108–113.
7.
EnghCAO’ConnorDJastyM, et al. Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res1992; 285: 13–29.
8.
BragdonCRBurkeDLowensteinJD, et al. Differences in stiffness of the interface between a cementless porous implant and cancellous bone in vivo in dogs due to varying amounts of implant motion. J Arthroplasty1996; 11(8): 945–951.
9.
JastyMBragdonCRBurkeD, et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79(5): 707–714.
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.
12.
TaralaMJanssenDVerdonschotN.Balancing incompatible endoprosthetic design goals: a combined ingrowth and bone remodeling simulation. Med Eng Phys2011; 33(3): 374–380.
13.
PettersenSHWikTSSkallerudB.Subject specific finite element analysis of implant stability for a cementless femoral stem. Clin Biomech2009; 24(6): 480–487.
14.
VicecontiMPancantiADottiM, et al. Effect of the initial implant fitting on the predicted secondary stability of a cementless stem. Med Biol Eng Comput2004; 42(2): 222–229.
15.
DammakMShirazi-AdlAZukorDJ.Analysis of cementless implants using interface nonlinear friction – experimental and finite element studies. J Biomech1997; 30(2): 121–129.
16.
VicecontiMMucciniRBernakiewiczM, et al. Large-sliding contact elements accurately predict levels of bone-implant micromotion relevant to osseointegration. J Biomech2000; 33(12): 1611–1618.
17.
FernandesPRFolgadoJJacobsC, et al. A contact model with ingrowth control for bone remodelling around cementless stems. J Biomech2002; 35(2): 167–176.
18.
ReggianiBCristofoliniLVariniE, et al. Predicting the subject-specific primary stability of cementless implants during pre-operative planning: preliminary validation of subject-specific finite-element models. J Biomech2007; 40(11): 2552–2558.
19.
ReimeringerMNunoNDesmarais-TrepanierC, et al. The influence of uncemented femoral stem length and design on its primary stability: a finite element analysis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2013; 16(11): 1221–1231.
20.
WalkerPSSchneeweisDMurphyS, et al. Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses. J Biomech1987; 20(7): 693–702.
21.
BuhlerDWBerlemannULippunerK, et al. Three-dimensional primary stability of cementless femoral stems. Clin Biomech1997; 12(2): 75–86.
22.
BrittonJRLyonsCGPrendergastPJ.Measurement of the relative motion between an implant and bone under cyclic loading. Strain2004; 40(4): 193–202.
23.
CristofoliniLVariniEPelgreffiI, et al. Device to measure intra-operatively the primary stability of cementless hip stems. Med Eng Phys2006; 28(5): 475–482.
24.
GheduzziSMilesAW.A review of pre-clinical testing of femoral stem subsidence and comparison with clinical data. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2007; 221(1): 39–46.
25.
GortchacowMWettsteinMPiolettiDP, et al. Simultaneous and multisite measure of micromotion, subsidence and gap to evaluate femoral stem stability. J Biomech2012; 45(7): 1232–1238.
26.
CaouetteCBureauMNLavigneM, et al. A new interface element with progressive damage and osseointegration for modeling of interfaces in hip resurfacing. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2013; 227(3): 209–220.
27.
DickinsonATaylorABrowneM.Implant-bone interface healing and adaptation in resurfacing hip replacement. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2012; 15(9): 935–947.
28.
BobynJDStackpoolGJHackingSA, et al. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br1999; 81(5): 907–914.
29.
BurrDBMoriSBoydRD, et al. Histomorphometric assessment of the mechanisms for rapid ingrowth of bone to HA/TCP coated implants. J Biomed Mater Res1993; 27(5): 645–653.
30.
CajaVLMoroniAEggerEL, et al. The effect of bead diameter on the accuracy of two current techniques used to quantify bone ingrowth in porous-coated implants. J Mater Sci-Mater M1994; 5(1): 29–32.
31.
D’LimaDDLemperleSMChenPC, et al. Bone response to implant surface morphology. J Arthroplasty1998; 13(8): 928–934.
32.
FrenkelSRJaffeWLDimaanoF, et al. Bone response to a novel highly porous surface in a canine implantable chamber. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater2004; 71(2): 387–391.
33.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Influence of implant surface texture design on peri-acetabular bone ingrowth: a mechanobiology based finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng2017; 139(3): 031006.
34.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Bone ingrowth around porous-coated acetabular implant: a three-dimensional finite element study using mechanoregulatory algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2016; 15(2): 389–403.
35.
MukherjeeKGuptaS.Combined bone ingrowth and remodeling around uncemented acetabular component: a multiscale mechanobiology-based finite element analysis. J Biomech Eng2017; 139(9): 091007.
36.
TaralaMJanssenDVerdonschotN.Toward a method to simulate the process of bone ingrowth in cementless THA using finite element method. Med Eng Phys2013; 35(4): 543–548.
37.
RubenRBFernandesPRFolgadoJ.On the optimal shape of hip implants. J Biomech2012; 45(2): 239–246.
38.
ChandaSGuptaSPratiharDK.Effects of interfacial conditions on shape optimization of cementless hip stem: an investigation based on a hybrid framework. Struct Multidiscip O2016; 5(5): 1143–1155.
39.
ChandaSGuptaSPratiharDK.A genetic algorithm based multi-objective shape optimization scheme for cementless femoral implant. J Biomech Eng2017; 137(3): 034502.
40.
VicecontiMBellingeriLCristofoliniLL, et al. A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs. Med Eng Phys1998; 20(1): 1–10.
41.
ZannoniCMantovaniRVicecontiM.Material properties assignment to finite element models of bone structures: a new method. Med Eng Phys1998; 20(10): 735–740.
42.
TaddeiFPancantiAVicecontiM.An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys2009; 26(1): 61–69.
43.
MorganEFBayraktarHHKeavenyTM.Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech2003; 36(7): 897–904.
44.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerM, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001; 34(7): 859–871.
45.
HellerMOBergmannGDeuretzbacherG, et al. Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech2001; 34(7): 883–893.
46.
VicecontiMMontiLMucciniR, et al. Even a thin layer of soft tissue may compromise the primary stability of cementless hip stems. Clin Biomech2001; 16(9): 765–775.
47.
PalBGuptaS.The effect of primary stability on load transfer and bone remodelling within the uncemented resurfaced femur. Proc IMechE Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2001; 225(6): 549–561.
48.
KanekoTSBellJSPejcicMR, et al. Mechanical properties, density and quantitative CT scan data of trabecular bone with and without metastases. J Biomech2004; 37(4): 523–530.
49.
MoreoPPérezMAGarcía-AznarJM, et al. Modelling the mechanical behaviour of living bony interfaces. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng2007; 196(35–36): 3300–3314.
50.
SvehlaMMorbergPZicatB, et al. Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures. J Biomed Mater Res2000; 51(1): 15–22.
51.
WeinansHHuiskesRvan RietbergenB, et al. Adaptive bone remodeling around bonded noncemented total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between animal experiments and computer simulation. J Orthop Res1993; 11(4): 500–513.
52.
Van RietbergenBHuiskesRWeinansH, et al. ESB Research Award 1992. The mechanism of bone remodeling and resorption around press-fitted THA stems. J Biomech1993; 26(4–5): 369–382.
53.
HuiskesRvan RietbergenB.Preclinical testing of total hip stems: the effects of coating placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res1995; 319: 64–76.
54.
AmendolaRLGoetzDDLiuSS, et al. Two- to 4-year followup of a short stem THA construct: excellent fixation, thigh pain a concern. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475(2): 375–383.
55.
SperatiGCeriL.Total hip arthroplasty using TRI-LOCK® DePuy bone preservation femoral stem: our experience. Acta Biomed2014; 85(Suppl. 2): 66–70.
56.
HealyWLTilzeyJFIorioR, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cobalt-chrome and titanium trilock femoral stems. J Arthroplasty2009; 24(6): 831–836.
57.
IsakssonHWilsonWvan DonkelaarCC, et al. Comparison of biophysical stimuli for mechano-regulation of tissue differentiation during fracture healing. J Biomech2006; 39(8): 1507–1516.
58.
ClaesLAugatPSugerG, et al. Influence of size and stability of the osteotomy gap on the success of fracture healing. J Orthop Res1997; 15(4): 577–584.
59.
ClaesLEHeigeleCANeidlinger-WilkeC, et al. Effects of mechanical factors on the fracture healing process. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998; 355: S132–S147.
60.
LacroixDPrendergastPJ.A mechano-regulation model for tissue differentiation during fracture healing: analysis of gap size and loading. J Biomech2002; 35(9): 1163–1171.
61.
NishiiTSuganoNMasuharaK, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of time related bone remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1997; 339: 121–131.
62.
TrevisanCBigoniMRandelliG, et al. Periprosthetic bone density around fully hydroxyapatite coated femoral stem. Clin Orthop Relat Res1997; 340: 109–117.
63.
KhanujaHSVakilJJGoddardMS, et al. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93(5): 500–509.
64.
PrymkaMWuLHahneHJ, et al. The dimensional accuracy for preparation of the femoral cavity in hip arthroplasty. a comparison between manual- and robot-assisted implantation of hip endoprosthesis stems in cadaver femurs. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2006; 126(1): 36–44.
