Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is associated with increased frictional moments compared to standard heads owing to their large diameter. High frictional moments may harbor the risk of the implant loosening if the frictional moments exceed the fixation stability of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Therefore, the aim of this experimental study was to evaluate the fixation stability of ceramic hip resurfacing implants through a turn-off test. The test specimens, made of alumina toughened zirconia (ATZ) ceramics with an inner titanium-coated surface and square base bodies for better application to the test setup, were pushed on artificial bone materials until a predefined seating depth was achieved. Thereafter, the specimens were turned off from the artificial bone material by using a lever-arm and the turn-off moments were calculated. The density of the artificial bone material utilized (15 and 25 pcf), the press-fit (0.4 and 0.8 mm) and the size of the test specimens varied. The push-on forces ranged from 0.6 ± 0.1 kN to 5.6 ± 0.5 kN depending on the press-fit and artificial bone material. The turn-off moments relied on the respective press-fit, artificial bone material and size of the specimen. They belonged between the range of 8.5 ± 0.4 Nm and 105.4 ± 0.2 Nm. Most of the previously described frictional moments are lower compared to the turn-off moments determined in this study. However, in the worst-case scenario, the turn-off moments of the hip resurfacing implants may be reduced, especially when the adjacent bone stock has a low mineral density.
Le DuffMJAmstutzHC. The relationship of sporting activity and implant survivorship after hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012; 94: 911–918.
2.
SershonRBalkissoonRDella ValleCJ.Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2016; 9: 84–92.
3.
BallSTLe DuffMJAmstutzHC.Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 735–741.
4.
WitzlebW-CHanischUKolarN, et al. Neo-capsule tissue reactions in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2007; 78: 211–220.
5.
WattersTSCardonaDMMenonKS, et al. Aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion: a clinicopathologic review of an underrecognized cause of prosthetic failure. Am J Clin Pathol2010; 134: 886–893.
6.
LangtonDJSprowsonAPJoyceTJ, et al. Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthro-plasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplas-ties. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 1287–1295.
7.
DaviesAPWillertHGCampbellPA, et al. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 18–27.
8.
PailhéRSharmaAReinaN, et al. Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature. Int Orthop2012; 36: 2399–2410.
9.
DickinsonASBrowneMWilsonKC, et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of ceramic femoral head resurfacing prostheses using computational models and mechanical testing. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2011; 225: 866–876.
10.
PalBGuptaSNewAMR. Design considerations for ceramic resurfaced femoral head: effect of interface characteristics on failure mechanisms. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2010; 13: 143–155.
11.
VogelDLiebeltMKalkowskyF, et al. Mechanical and numerical characterization of ceramic femoral components for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2019; 233: 883–891.
12.
PalBGuptaSNewAM.A numerical study of failure mechanisms in the cemented resurfaced femur: effects of interface characteristics and bone remodelling. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223: 471–484.
13.
OngKLDayJSKurtzSM, et al. Role of surgical position on interface stress and initial bone remodeling stimulus around hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 1137–1142.
14.
OngKLKurtzSMManleyMT, et al. Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88: 1110–1115.
15.
VogelDWehmeyerMKebbachM, et al. Stress and strain distribution in femoral heads for hip resurfacing arthroplasty with different materials: a finite element analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2021; 113: 104115.
16.
SumnerDR.Long-term implant fixation and stress-shielding in total hip replacement. J Biomech2015; 48: 797–800.
17.
CheruvuBVenkatarayappaIGoswamiDSCT. Stress shielding in cemented hip implants assessed from computed tomography. BJSTR2019; 18(3): 13637–13641.
18.
FarhoudiHOskoueiRHPasha ZanoosiAA, et al. An analytical calculation of frictional and bending moments at the head-neck interface of hip joint implants during different physiological activities. Materials (Basel)2016; 9(12): 982.
19.
BishopNEHothanAMorlockMM.High friction moments in large hard-on-hard hip replacement bearings in conditions of poor lubrication. J Orthop Res2013; 31: 807–813.
20.
RivaFBonaFBenasciuttiD, et al. Comparison of tri-axial friction moment in standard and resurfacing hip joint prosthesis: an in itro study. J Bone Joint Surg2017: 113.
21.
GoriainovVJonesABriscoeA, et al. Do the cup surface properties influence the initial stability?J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 757–762.
22.
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 Methods Biomech Biomed Engin2019; 22: 25–37.
23.
AdlerEStuchinSAKummerFJ.Stability of press-fit acetabular cups. J Arthroplasty1992; 7: 295–301.
24.
MacdonaldWCarlssonLVCharnleyGJ, et al. Press-fit acetabular cup fixation: principles and testing. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine1999; 213: 33–39.
25.
CalvertKLTrumbleKPWebsterTJ, et al. Characterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testing. J Mater Sci Mater Med2010; 21: 1453–1461.
26.
HelgasonBPerilliESchileoE, et al. Mathematical relationships between bone density and mechanical properties: a literature review. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2008; 23: 135–146.
27.
CrosnierEAKeoghPSMilesAW.A novel method to assess primary stability of press-fit acetabular cups. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2014; 228: 1126–1134.
28.
SmallSRBerendMEHowardLA, et al. High initial stability in porous titanium acetabular cups: a bio-mechanical study. J Arthroplasty2013; 28: 510–516.
29.
SchulzeCVogelDMallowS, et al. Comparison of test setups for the experimental evaluation of the primary fixation stability of acetabular cups. Materials (Basel)2020; 13.
30.
NassuttRMollenhauerIKlingbeilK, et al. Die Bedeutung der Setzkraft für die Sicherheit einer Ko-nuskopplung von Hüftstiel und keramischem Prothesenkopf. Biomed Tech (Berl)2006; 51: 103–109.
31.
WendlerTPrietzelTMöbiusR, et al. Quantification of assembly forces during creation of head-neck taper junction considering soft tissue bearing: a biomechanical study. Arthroplasty2021; 3: 1–10.
32.
AugatPBlivenEHacklS.Biomechanics of Femoral Neck Fractures and Implications for Fixation. J Orthop Trauma2019; 33(Suppl 1): S27–S32.
33.
SonntagRBraunSAl-SalehiL, et al. Three-dimensional friction measurement during hip simulation. PLoS One2017; 12: e0184043.
34.
BergmannGBenderADymkeJ, et al. Physical activities that cause high friction moments at the cup in hip implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 1637–1644.
35.
DammPBenderADudaG, et al. In vivo measured joint friction in hip implants during walking after a short rest. PLoS One2017; 12: e0174788.
36.
HausmannJ-T.Sawbones in Biomechanical Settings—a review. Osteo Trauma Care2006; 14: 259–264.
37.
BowlandPCowieRMInghamE, et al. Biomechanical assessment of the stability of osteochondral grafts implanted in porcine and bovine femoral condyles. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 234: 163–170.
38.
PatilSButcherWD’LimaDD, et al. Effect of osteochondral graft insertion forces on chondrocyte viability. Am J Sports Med2008; 36: 1726–1732.
39.
MeneghiniRMMeyerCBuckleyCA, et al. Mechanical stability of novel highly porous metal acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 337–341.
40.
MarkelDCHoraNGrimmM.Press-fit stability of uncemented hemispheric acetabular components: a comparison of three porous coating systems. Int Orthop2002; 26: 72–75.
41.
SchreinerUSimnacherMSchellerG, et al. Der Einfluss von Oberflächenmerkmalen auf die Primärsta-bilität einer zementfreien Hüftpfanne: eine mechanische In-vitro-Untersuchung. Biomed Tech (Berl)2007; 52: 243–247.
42.
GrantJABishopNEGötzenN, et al. Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: the implant-bone interface. J Biomech2007; 40: 1158–1164.
43.
NassuttRWimmerMASchneiderE, et al. The influence of resting periods on friction in the artificial hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; (407): 127–138.
44.
PilliarRMLeeJMManiatopoulosC.Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986; (208): 108–113.
