To evaluate the effect of prosthesis design on stress profile in the proximal femur after hip resurfacing.
Methods.
The von Mises stress profile of the native femur was simulated and compared with that of resurfaced femurs using various prosthetic materials (titanium, cobalt-chrome, ceramic), stem lengths (normal, half, short, and no stem), and femoral head coverage (shell size) [260°, 220°, 180°, and 140°].
Results.
Hip resurfacing altered the stress profile of the cancellous (but not cortical) bone of the femoral neck. Maximal cortical stresses were observed at the posterior half of the medial femoral neck. The stress profile of the native femur was most similar to that of the resurfaced femur made of titanium, with a short or no stem and 260 degrees of femoral head coverage (shell size).
Conclusion. Optimising prosthesis design by minimising biomechanical alterations seems a valid approach to achieving favourable long-term outcomes. Cadaveric and in vivo studies are needed to confirm the clinical relevance and feasibility.
Smith-PetersenMN. Evolution of mould arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br1948;30:59–75.
2.
HowieDWCampbellDMcGeeMCornishBL. Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am1990;72:708–14.
SinhaRK. Hip replacement: Current trends and controversies. 1st ed.New York: Marcel Dekker; 2002.
5.
DanielJPynsentPBMcMinnDJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004;86:177–84.
6.
GoldieIFBunketorpOGunterbergBHanssonTMyrhageR. Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. Biomechanical, morphological, and clinical aspects based on the results of a preliminary clinical study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg1979;95:149–57.
7.
HuiskesRStrensPHvan HeckJSlooffTJ. Interface stresses in the resurfaced hip. Finite element analysis of load transmission in the femoral head. Acta Orthop Scand1985;56:474–8.
8.
ShybutGTAskewMJHoriRYStulbergSD. Computational stress analysis of cup replacement hip arthroplasty. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs1979;25:24–6.
9.
WagnerH. Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res1978;134:102–30.
10.
WatanabeYShibaNMatsuoSHiguchiFTagawaYInoueA. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: Finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthroplasty2000;15:505–11.
11.
VicecontiMAnsaloniMBaleaniMToniA. The muscle standardized femur: A step forward in the replication of numerical studies in biomechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]2003;217:105–10.
12.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerMGraichenFRohlmannAStraussJ. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001;34:859–71.
13.
BrownTDShawDT. In vitro contact stress distributions in the natural human hip. J Biomech1983;16:373–84.
14.
GoelVKSvenssonNL. Forces on the pelvis. J Biomech1977;10:195–200.
15.
OhIHarrisWH. Proximal strain distribution in the loaded femur. An in vitro comparison of the distributions in the intact femur and after insertion of different hip-replacement femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am1978;60:75–85.
16.
SvesnssonNLValliappanSWoodRD. Stress analysis of human femur with implanted Charnley prosthesis. J Biomech1977;10:581–8.
17.
WalkerPSSchneeweisDMurphySNelsonP. Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses. J Biomech1987;20:693–702.
18.
OtaniTWhitesideLAWhiteSE. Strain distribution in the proximal femur with flexible composite and metallic femoral components under axial and torsional loads. J Biomed Mater Res1993;27:575–85.
19.
OtaniTWhitesideLAWhiteSE. The effect of axial and torsional loading on strain distribution in the proximal femur as related to cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1993;292:376–83.
20.
GlissonRRMusgraveDSGrahamRDVailTP. Validity of photoelastic strain measurement on cadaveric proximal femora. J Biomech Eng2000;122:423–9.
21.
FinlayJBRorabeckCHBourneRBTewWM. In vitro analysis of proximal femoral strains using PCA femoral implants and a hip-abductor muscle simulator. J Arthroplasty1989;4:335–45.
22.
FieldRERushtonN. Proximal femoral surface strain gauge analysis of a new epiphyseal prosthesis. J Biomed Eng1989;11:123–9.
23.
ZhouXMWalkerPSRobertsonDD. Effect of press-fit femoral stems on strains in the femur. A photoelastic coating study. J Arthroplasty1990;5:71–82.
24.
LotzJCChealEJHayesWC. Fracture prediction for the proximal femur using finite element models: Part I—linear analysis. J Biomech Eng1991;113:353–60.
25.
BrownTDWayMEFergusonABJr. Stress transmission anomalies in femoral heads altered by aseptic necrosis. J Biomech1980;13:687–99.
26.
BradleyGWFreemanMARevellPA. Resurfacing arthroplasty. Femoral head viability. Clin Orthop Relat Res1987;220:137–41.
27.
WagnerMWagnerH. Preliminary results of uncemented metal on metal stemmed and resurfacing hip replacement arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996;329(Suppl):S78–88.
28.
KishidaYSuganoNNishiiTMikiHYamaguchiKYoshikawaH. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004;86:185–9.
29.
EvansFG. Mechanical properties of bone. 1st ed.Springfield: Thomas CC; 1973.
30.
VaheyJWLewisJLVanderbyRJr. Elastic moduli, yield stress, and ultimate stress of cancellous bone in the canine proximal femur. J Biomech1987;20:29–33.
31.
SchmalzriedTPSzuszczewiczESNorthfieldMRAkizukiKHFrankelREBelcherG. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1998;80:54–9.
32.
SchmalzriedTPShepherdEFDoreyFJJacksonWORosadela MFa'vaeF. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res2000;381:36–46.
33.
SchmalzriedTPJastyMHarrisWH. Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am1992;74:849–63.
34.
AmstutzHCCampbellPMcKellopHSchmalzreidTPGillespieWJHowieD. Metal on metal total hip replacement workshop consensus document. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996;329(Suppl):S297–303.
35.
DoornPFMirraJMCampbellPAAmstutzHC. Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996;329(Suppl):S187–205.
36.
AdiliATrousdaleRT. Femoral head resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis in the young patient. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003;417:93–101.
37.
Glyn-JonesSGillHSMcLardy-SmithPMurrayDW. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A two-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004;86:172–6.
38.
SilvaMLeeKHHeiselCRosadela MASchmalzriedTP. The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004;86:40–6.
39.
HuiskesRStrensPVroemenWSlooffTJ. Post-loosening mechanical behavior of femoral resurfacing prostheses. Clin Mater1990;6:37–55.
40.
WeinansHHuiskesRGrootenboerHJ. Quantitative analysis of bone reactions to relative motions at implant-bone interfaces. J Biomech1993;26:1271–81.
41.
HedleyAKClarkeICKozinnSCCosterIGruenTAmstutzHC. Porous ingrowth fixation of the femoral component in a canine surface replacement of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res1982;163:300–11.
Van der VisHMAspenbergPTigchelaarWVan NoordenCJ. Mechanical compression of a fibrous membrane surrounding bone causes bone resorption. Acta Histochem1999;101:203–12.
