BACKGROUND: The design of femoral component used in total hip arthroplasty is known to influence the incidence of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) in cementless hip arthroplasty.
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine if 2 potential changes to an existing ABG II-standard cementless implant – addition of a roughened titanium plasma-sprayed proximal coating (ABG II-plasma) and lack of medial scales (ABG II-NMS) could decrease the risk of PFF in the intraoperative and early postoperative periods.
METHODS: Six pairs of human cadaveric femurs were harvested and divided into 2 groups, each receiving either of the altered implants and ABG II-standard (control). Each implant was tested in a biomechanical setup in a single-legged stance orientation. Surface strains were measured in intact femurs, during implant insertion, cyclic loading of the bone with the implant, and loading to failure. Strains with the ABG II-standard and the altered implants were compared.
FINDINGS: ABG II-plasma showed better load-bearing capacity, with an average 42% greater failure load than that of ABG II-standard. The cortical hoop, axial and mean strains ABG II-plasma were less than those of ABG II-standard, demonstrating decreased tensile behaviour and better load transfer to the proximal femur. The final residual hoop strains in ABG II-plasma were closer to those of intact bone as compared to the standard stem. No differences in strains were observed between the standard stem and ABG II-NMS.
CONCLUSION: The increased load-bearing capacity and decreased proximal surface strains on femurs implanted with ABG II-plasma stem should reduce the risks of intraoperative and early postoperative PFF.
MoazenM.JonesA.C.JinZ.WilcoxR.K. and TsiridisE., Periprosthetic fracture fixation of the femur following total hip arthroplasty: A review of biomechanical testing, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)26 (2011), 13–22.
2.
FranklinJ. and MalchauH., Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture, Injury38 (2007), 655–660.
3.
RupprechtM.SellenschlohK.GrossterlindenL.PüschelK.MorlockM.AmlingM.et al., Biomechanical evaluation for mechanisms of periprosthetic femoral fractures, J. Trauma70 (2011), E62–E66.
4.
LindahlH., Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty, Injury38 (2007), 651–654.
5.
MasriB.A.MeekR.M. and DuncanC.P., Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.420 (2004), 80–95.
6.
EskelinenA.RemesV.HeleniusI.PulkkinenP.NevalainenJ. and PaavolainenP., Uncemented total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in young patients: A mid- to long-term follow-up study from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Acta Orthop.77 (2006), 57–70.
7.
SaitoS.IshiiT.MoriS.HosakaK.SuzukiT. and TokuhashiY., The Harris–Galante cementless THA: A 19- to 25-year follow-up study, Orthopedics34 (2011), 12.
8.
StastnyE.TrcT.HandlM. and FrydlJ., Cementless total hip replacement type S.F.: Mid-term results, Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech.76 (2009), 487–494.
9.
UnnanuntanaA.DimitrouliasA.BolognesiM.P.HwangK.L.GoodmanS.B. and MarcusR.E., Cementless femoral prostheses cost more to implant than cemented femoral prostheses, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.467 (2009), 1546–1551.
10.
AamodtA.Lund-LarsenJ.EineJ.AndersenE.BenumP. and HusbyO.S., Changes in proximal femoral strain after insertion of uncemented standard and customised femoral stems. An experimental study in human femora, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br.83 (2001), 921–929.
11.
EliasJ.J.NagaoM.ChuY.H.CarboneJ.J.LennoxD.W. and ChaoE.Y., Medial cortex strain distribution during noncemented total hip arthroplasty, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.370 (2000), 250–258.
12.
PastravL.C.DevosJ.Van der PerreG. and JaecquesS.V., A finite element analysis of the vibrational behaviour of the intra-operatively manufactured prosthesis-femur system, Med. Eng. Phys.31 (2009), 489–494.
13.
BerryD.J., Epidemiology: Hip and knee, Orthop. Clin. North Am.30 (1999), 183–190.
14.
TsiridisE.HaddadF.S. and GieG.A., The management of periprosthetic femoral fractures around hip replacements, Injury34 (2003), 95–105.
15.
ToninoA.J.ThèrinM. and DoyleC., Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histology and histomorphometry around five components retrieved at post mortem, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br.81 (1999), 148–154.
16.
van der WalB.C.RahmyA.GrimmB.HeyligersI. and ToninoA., Preoperative bone quality as a factor in dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis comparing bone remodelling between two implant types, Int. Orthop.32 (2008), 39–45.
17.
van RietbergenB. and HuiskesR., Load transfer and stress shielding of the hydroxyapatite-ABG hip: A study of stem length and proximal fixation, J. Arthroplasty16 (2001), 55–63.
18.
FitzgeraldR.H.Jr.BrindleyG.W. and KavanaghB.F., The uncemented total hip arthroplasty: Intraoperative femoral fractures, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.235 (1988), 61–66.
19.
KimY.H.KimJ.S. and ChoS.H., Strain distribution in the proximal human femur. An in vitro comparison in the intact femur and after insertion of reference and experimental femoral stems, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br.83 (2001), 295–301.
20.
BühlerD.W.BerlemannU.LippunerK.JaegerP. and NolteL.P., Three-dimensional primary stability of cementless femoral stems, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)12 (1997), 75–86.
21.
GotzeC.SteensW.ViethV.PorembaC.ClaesL. and SteinbeckJ., Primary stability in cementless femoral stems: Custom-made versus conventional femoral prosthesis, Clin. Biomech. (Bristol, Avon)17 (2002), 267–273.
22.
SchneiderE.KinastC.EulenbergerJ.WyderD.EskilssonG. and PerrenS.M., A comparative study of the initial stability of cementless hip prostheses, Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.248 (1989), 200–209.
