The thickness of the cement mantle around the femoral component of total hip replacements is a contributing factor to aseptic loosening and revision. Nevertheless, various designs of stems and surgical tooling lead to cement mantles of different thicknesses. Opinion is divided on whether a thick mantle enhances implant longevity. This study investigates the effect of cement mantle thickness on accumulated damage in the cement, and how this is influenced by the presence or absence of a proximal collar and on whether the stem—cement interface remains bonded. Three-dimensional finite element simulations incorporating creep and non-linear damage accumulation were performed to investigate cracking in the cement mantles around Stanmore Hips under physiologically informed stair-climbing and gait loads. Cement mantle thickness, stem—cement interfacial bonding, and collar design were varied to assess the interactive effects of these parameters. In all cases, damage levels were three to six times higher when the stem—cement interface remained bonded. Cement mantle thickness had little effect on cement damage accumulation around debonded collared stems but was critical in both bonded and collarless cases, where a thicker mantle reduced cement cracking. Damage around a smooth debonded stem with a collar is thus much less sensitive to cement thickness than around bonded or collarless stems.
KärrholmJ.GarellickG.HerbertsP.‘Annual report 2005.’Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden2006.
2.
AnthonyP. P.GieG. A.HowieC. R.LingR. S.‘Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to the femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.72 (6) (1990): 971–979
3.
SchmalzriedT. P.JastyM.HarrisW. H.‘Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.74 (6) (1992): 849–863
4.
JastyM.MaloneyW. J.BragdonC. R.HaireT. C.HarrisW. H.‘Histomorphological studies of the long-term skeletal responses to well fixed cemented femoral components.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.72 (8) (1990): 1220–1229
5.
TopoleskiL. D.DucheyneP.CucklerJ. M.‘Microstructural pathway of fracture in poly(methyl methacrylate) bone cement.’Biomaterials14 (15) (1993): 1165–1172
6.
NobleP. C.JohnsonJ. D.AlexanderJ. W.‘Cracking of the debonded cement mantle is the critical event in the aseptic loosening of cemented femoral stems.’Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc.51 (30) (2005): 9
7.
StolkJ.MaherS. A.VerdonschotN.PrendergastP. J.HuiskesR.‘Can finite element models detect clinically inferior cemented hip implants?’Clin. Orthop. Related Res.409 (2003): 138–150
8.
StolkJ.JanssenD.HuiskesR.VerdonschotN.‘Finite element-based preclinical testing of cemented total hip implants.’Clin. Orthop. Related Res.456 (2007): 138–147
9.
MulroyW. F.EstokD. M.HarrisW. H.‘Total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.77 (12) (1995): 1845–1852
10.
EbramzadehE.SarmientoA.McKellopH. A.LlinasA.GoganW.‘The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.76 (1) (1994): 77–87
11.
JoshiR. P.EftekharN. S.McMahonD. J.NercessianO. A.‘Osteolysis after Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasty. A comparison of two matched paired groups.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.80 (4) (1998): 585–590
12.
MaloneyW. J.JastyM.RosenbergA.HarrisW. H.‘Bone lysis in well-fixed cemented femoral components.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.72 (6) (1990): 966–970
13.
HertzlerJ.MillerM. A.MannK. A.‘Fatigue crack growth rate does not depend on mantle thickness: An idealized cemented stem construct under torsional loading.’J. Orthop. Res.20 (4) (2002): 676–682
14.
MannK. A.GuptaS.RaceA.MillerM. A.ClearyR. J.AyersD. C.‘Cement microcracks in thin-mantle regions after in vitro fatigue loading.’J. Arthroplasty19 (5) (2004): 605–612
15.
EstokD. M.OrrT. E.HarrisW. H.‘Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component.’J. Arthroplasty12 (1) (1997): 40–48
16.
FisherD. A.TsangA. C.PaydarN.MilionisS.TurnerC. H.‘Cement-mantle thickness affects cement strains in total hip replacement.’J. Biomechanics30 (11–12) (1997): 1173–1177
17.
LeeI. Y.SkinnerH. B.KeyakJ. H.‘Effects of variation of prosthesis size on cement stress at the tip of a femoral implant.’J. Biomed. Mater. Res.28 (9) (1994): 1055–1060
18.
SkinnerJ. A.TodoS.TaylorM.WangJ. S.PinskerovaV.ScottG.‘Should the cement mantle around the femoral component be thick or thin?’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.85 (1) (2003): 45–51
19.
CristofoliniL.EraniP.SavigniP.GruppT.ThiesO.VicecontiM.‘Increased long-term failure risk associated with excessively thin cement mantle in cemented hip arthroplasty: A comparative in vitro study.’Clin. Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)22 (4) (2007): 410–421
20.
Gerritsma-BleekerC. L.DeutmanR.MulderT. J.SteinbergJ. D.‘The Stanmore total hip replacement. A 22-year follow-up.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.82 (1) (2000): 97–102
21.
StolkJ.VerdonschotN.CristofoliniL.ToniA.HuiskesR.‘Finite element and experimental models of cemented hip joint reconstructions can produce similar bone and cement strains in pre-clinical tests.’J. Biomechanics35 (4) (2002): 499–510
22.
MannK. A.BartelD. L.WrightT. M.IngraffeaA. R.‘Mechanical characteristics of the stem—cement interface.’J. Orthop. Res.9 (6) (1991): 798–808
23.
VerdonschotN.HuiskesR.‘Subsidence of THA stems due to acrylic cement creep is extremely sensitive to interface friction.’J. Biomechanics29 (12) (1996): 1569–1575
24.
ReillyD. T.BursteinA. H.‘The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue.’J. Biomechanics8 (6) (1975): 393–405
25.
StolkJ.VerdonschotN.MurphyB. P.PrendergastP. J.HuiskesR.‘Finite element simulation of anisotropic damage accumulation and creep in acrylic bone cement.’Engng Fracture Mechanics71 (4–6) (2004): 513–528
26.
VerdonschotN.HuiskesR.‘Dynamic creep behavior of acrylic bone cement.’J. Biomed. Mater. Res.29 (5) (1995): 575–581
27.
MurphyB. P.PrendergastP. J.‘Measurement of non-linear microcrack accumulation rates in polymethylmethacrylate bone cement under cyclic loading.’J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Medicine10 (12) (1999): 779–781
28.
BergmannG.HIP98, Loading of the hip joint (Freie Universität2001)
29.
StolkJ.VerdonschotN.HuiskesR.‘Stair climbing is more detrimental to the cement in hip replacement than walking.’Clin. Orthop. Related Res.405 (2002): 294–305
30.
HarriganT. P.HarrisW. H.‘A three-dimensional non-linear finite element study of the effect of cement—prosthesis debonding in cemented femoral total hip components.’J. Biomechanics24 (11) (1991): 1047–1058
31.
MassinP.AstoinE.LavasteF.‘Influence de la géométrie proximale et de l'état de surface des prothèses fémorales de hanches cimentées sur les contraintes dans l'os et le cement [Influence of proximal stem geometry and stem—cement interface characteristics on bone and cement stresses in femoral hip arthroplasty: Finite element analysis].’Rev. Chir. Orthop. Reparatrice Appar. Mot.89 (2) (2003): 134–143
32.
VerdonschotN.HuiskesR.‘The effects of cement—stem debonding in THA on the long-term failure probability of cement.’J. Biomechanics30 (8) (1997): 795–802
33.
WheelerJ. P.MilesA. W.CliftS. E.‘The influence of the stem-cement interface in total hip replacement — a comparison of experimental and finite element approaches.’Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine211 (2) (1997): 181–186
34.
CollisD. K.MohlerC. G.‘Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Am.84 (4) (2002): 586–592
35.
DatirS. P.Wynn-JonesC. H.‘Staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty using rough and smooth surface femoral stems with similar design: 10-year survivorship of 48 cases.’Acta Orthopaedica76 (6) (2005): 809–814
36.
DatirS. P.KurtaI. C.Wynn-JonesC. H.‘Ten-year survivorship of rough-surfaced femoral stem with geometry similar to Charnley femoral stem.’J. Arthroplasty21 (3) (2006): 392–397
37.
Della ValleA. G.ZoppiA.PetersonM. G.SalvatiE. A.‘A rough surface finish adversely affects the survivorship of a cemented femoral stem.’Clin. Orthop. Related Res.436 (2005): 158–163
38.
HinrichsF.KuhlM.BoudriotU.GrissP.‘A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10–13 year results) versus rough surface finish (5–8 year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem.’Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg.123 (6) (2003): 268–272
39.
DamronL. A.KimD. G.MannK. A.‘Fatigue debonding of the roughened stem—cement interface: Effects of surface roughness and stem heating conditions.’J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomaterials78 (1) (2006): 181–188
40.
LanglaisF.KerboullM.SedelL.LingR. S.‘The ‘French paradox’.’J. Bone Jt Surg. Br.85 (1) (2003): 17–20
41.
JanssenD.van AkenJ.ScheerlinckT.VerdonschotN.‘The ‘French paradox’ exposed: A finite element analysis of cement philosophy on implant stability and crack formation in the cement mantle.’Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc.32 (2007): 280
42.
RaceA.MillerM. A.AyersD. C.MannK. A.‘Early cement damage around a femoral stem is concentrated at the cement/bone interface.’J. Biomechanics36 (4) (2003): 489–496
43.
JeffersJ. R.BrowneM.LennonA. B.PrendergastP. J.TaylorM.‘Cement mantle fatigue failure in total hip replacement: Experimental and computational testing.’J. Biomechanics40 (7) (2007): 1525–1533
44.
CaruanaJ.MannanK.SanghrajkaA. P.HiggsD.BriggsT. W. R.BlunnG. W.‘Does choice of femoral cement mantle thickness depend on bone density?’Trans. Orthop. Res. Soc.30 (2005): 1185
