The aim of this study was to compare the perturbances in bone deformation patterns of the proximal femur due to a conventional cemented femoral stem and a novel uncemented implant designed on the principles of osseointegration. Five matched pairs of fresh frozen human femora were mechanically tested. Bone deformation patterns, measured with a video digitizing system under 1.5 kN joint force, showed that the cemented Spectron femoral implant caused significant alterations to the proximal femoral deformation pattern, whereas the Gothenburg osseointegrated titanium femoral implant did not significantly alter the bone behaviour (p < 0.05). Vertical micromotions measured under 1 kN after 1000 cycles were within the threshold of movement tolerable for bone ingrowth (21 μm for the Gothenburg system and 26 μm for the cemented implant).
BoccoF.LanganP.CharnleyJ.Changes in the calcar femoris in relation to cement technology in total hip replacementClin. Orthop., 1977, 128, 287–295.
2.
EnghC. A.BobynD. J.The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplastyClin. Orthop., 1988, 231, 7–28.
HungerfordD. S.JonesL. C.The rationale of cementless revision of cemented arthroplasty failuresClin. Orthop., 1988, 235, 12–24.
5.
SchmalzriedT. P.JastyM.HarrisW. H.Periprostheticbone loss in total hip arthroplasty: Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint spaceJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am.), 1992, 74-A, 849–863.
6.
DiegelP. D.DanielsA. U.DunnH. K.Initial effect of collarless stem stiffness on femoral bone strainJ. Arthroplasty, 1989, 4 (2), 173–178.
7.
EnghC. A.Quantifiction of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prosthesesClin. Orthop., 1992, 231, 13–29.
8.
HuiskesR.WeinansH.DalstraM.Adaptive bone remodelling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplastyOrthopedics, 1989, 12, 1255–1267.
9.
CohenB.RushtonN.Bone remodelling in the proximal femur after Charnley total hip arthroplastyJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Br.), 1995, 77-8 (5), 815–819.
10.
KobayashiS.EftekharN. S.TerayamaK.Long-term bone remodelling around the Charnley femoral prosthesesClin. Orthop., 1996, 326, 162–173.
11.
LewisJ. L.The influence of prosthetic stem stiffness and of a calcar collar on stresses in the proximal end of the femur with a cemented femoral componentJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am.), 1984, 66-A, 280–286.
12.
VailT. P.The effect of hip stem material modulus on surface strain in human femoraJ. Biomechanics, 1988, 31, 619–628.
13.
MarkolfK. L.AmstutzH. C.HirschowitzD. L.The effect of calcar contact on femoral component micromovementJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am.), 1980, 62-A, 1315–1323.
14.
MusgraveD. S.Effects of coronally slotted femoral prostheses on cortical bone strainJ. Arthroplasty, 1997, 12 (6), 657–669.
15.
SmithE.HarrisW. H.Increasing prevalence of femoral lysis in cementless total hip arthroplastyJ. Arthroplasty, 1995, 10 (4), 407–412.
16.
MaloneyW. J.WoolsonS. T.Increasing incidence of femoral osteolysis in association with uncemented Harris-Galante total hip arthroplastyJ. Arthroplasty, 1996, 11 (2), 130–134.
AlbrektssonT.JacobssonM.Bone metal interface in osseointegrationJ. Prosthetic Dentistry, 1987, 57(5), 597–607.
19.
AlbrektssonT.AlbrektssonB.Osseointegration of bone implantsActa Orthopaedica Scand., 1987, 58, 567–577.
20.
CarlssonL. V.Osseointegration of titanium implantsActa Orthopaedica Scand., 1986, 57, 285–289.
21.
CarlssonL. V.Removal torques for polished and rough titanium implantsInt. J. Oral Maxillofacial Implants, 1988, 3(1), 21–24.
22.
RöstlundT.Osseointegrated knee prosthesesScand. J. Plastic Reconstructive Surg., 1989, 23, 43–46.
23.
OhI.HarrisW. H.Proximal strain distribution in the loaded femurJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am), 1978, 60-A(1), 75–85.
24.
WalkerP. S.Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prosthesesJ. Biomechanics, 1987, 20 (7), 693–702.
25.
LeeT. Q.Structural integrity of implanted WMT Infinity hip and Osteonics Omnifit hip in fresh cadaveric hipsJ. Biomed. Mater. Res., 1998, 39, 516–523.
26.
BurkeD. W.Micromotion of cemented and uncemented femoral componentsJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Br.), 1991, 73-B, 33–37.
27.
PhillipsT. W.MessiehS. S.McDonaldP. D.Femoral stem fixation in hip replacementJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Br.), 1990, 72-B (3), 431–434.
28.
MalchauH.HerbertsP.AhnfeltL.Prognosis of total hip replacement in SwedenActa Orthopaedica Scand., 1993, 64 (5), 497–506.
29.
AlbrektssonT.Gothenburg osseointegrated hip arthroplastyClin. Orthop., 1998, 352, 81–94.
30.
LeeT. Q.Assessment of geometry and deformation characteristics of human cadaveric femurAdv. Bioengng, ASME, 1992, 74, 839–848.
31.
DavyD.T et al. Telemetric force measurements across the hip after total arthroplastyJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am.), 1988, 70-A, 45–50.
32.
CristofoliniL.Influence of thigh muscles on the axial strains in a proximal femur during early stance in gaitJ. Biomechanics, 1995, 28 (5), 617–624.
33.
LuT.-W.Influence of muscle activity on the forces in the femur: An in vivo studyJ. Biomechanics, 1997, 30, 1101–1106.
34.
TaylorM. E.Stress and strain distribution within the intact femur: Compression or bending?Med. Engng Physics, 1996, 18 (2), 122–131.
35.
ZhouX. M.WalkerP. S.RobertsonD. D.Effect of press-fit femoral stems on strains in the femurJ. Arthroplasty, 1990, 5 (1), 71–82.
36.
FinlayJ. B.An evaluation of three loading configurations for the in vitro testing of femoral strains in total hip arthroplastyJ. Orthop. Res., 1991, 9 (5), 749–759.
37.
SzivekJ. A.GealerR. L.Technical note: Comparison of the deformation response of synthetic and cadaveric femora during simulated one-legged stanceJ. Appl. Biomater., 1991, 2, 277–280.
38.
SchneiderE.A comparative study of the initial stability of cementless hip prosthesesClin. Orthop., 1989, 248, 200–209.
39.
CallaghanJ. J.The effect of femoral stem gemoetry on interface motion in uncemented porous-coated total hip prosthesesJ. Bone Jt Surg. (Am.), 1992, 74-A (6), 839–848.
40.
PilliarR. M.LeeJ. M.ManiatopoulosC.Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implantsClin. Orthop., 1986, 208, 108–113.
