The effects of necrotic lesion size and orientation of the femoral component on stress alterations in the proximal femur in hip resurfacing - a finite element simulation

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Pang-Hsin Hsieh²  Yung-Chou Chen¹  Ching-Lung Tai¹ 

[1] Graduate Institute of Medical Mechatronics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan;Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan

关键词: Finite element analysis;    Stress shielding;    Femoral head necrosis;    Hip resurfacing;   

Others  :  1122263
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-262

 received in 2014-03-17, accepted in 2014-07-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Due to the advantages of its bone-conserving nature, hip resurface arthroplasty (HRA) has recently gained the interest of orthopedic surgeons for the treatment of young and active patients who have osteonerosis of the femoral head. However, in long-term follow-up studies after HRA, narrowing of the femoral neck has often been found, which may lead to fracture. This phenomenon has been attributed to the stress alteration (stress shielding). Studies addressing the effects of necrotic size and the orientation of the implant on stress alterations are lacking.

Methods

Computed tomography images of a standard composite femur were used to create a three-dimensional finite-element (FE) intact femur model. Based on the intact model, FE models simulating four different levels of necrotic regions (0°, 60°, 100°, 115°) and three different implant insertion angles (varus 10°, neutral, valgus 10°) were created. The von Mises stress distributions and the displacement of the stem tip of each model were analyzed and compared for loading conditions that simulated a single-legged stance.

Results

Stress shielding occurred at the femoral neck after HRA. More severe stress shielding and an increased displacement of the stem tip were found for femoral heads that had a wider necrotic lesion. From a biomechanics perspective, the results were consistent with clinical evidence of femoral neck narrowing after HRA. In addition, a varus orientation of the implant resulted in a larger displacement of the stem tip, which could lead to an increased risk of implant loosening.

Conclusions

A femoral head with a wide necrotic lesion combined with a varus orientation of the prosthesis increases the risk of femoral neck narrowing and implant loosening following HRA.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tai et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006, 14(8):454-463. Review
• [2]Grigoris P, Roberts P, Panousis K, Bosch H: The evolution of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2005, 36(2):125-134. vii. Review
• [3]Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Migaud H: Hip resurfacing: current state of knowledge. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2008, 94(8):715-730.
• [4]Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, GruEN TA: Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86(1):28-39.
• [5]Howie DW, Cornish BL, Vernon-Roberts B: The viability of the femoral head after resurfacing hip arthroplasty in humans. Clin Orthop 1993, 291:171-184.
• [6]Grecula MJ: Resurfacing arthroplasty in osteonecrosis of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 2005, 36(2):231-242.
• [7]Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ: Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86(9):1874-1877.
• [8]Ritter MA, Lutgring JD, Berend ME, Pierson JL: Failure mechanisms of total hip resurfacing: implications for the present. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:110-114.
• [9]Spencer S, Carter R, Murray H, Meek RM: Femoral neck narrowing after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23(8):1105-1109.
• [10]Wang W, Geller JA, Hasija R, Choi JK, Patrick DA Jr, Macaulay W: Longitudinal evaluation of time related femoral neck narrowing after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. World J Orthop 2013, 4(2):75-79.
• [11]Deuel CR, Jamali AA, Stover SM, Hazelwood SJ: Alterations in femoral strain following hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2009, 91(1):124-130.
• [12]Radcliffe IA, Taylor M: Investigation into the effect of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 2007, 22(7):780-786.
• [13]Koo KH, Kim R: Quantifying the extent of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. A new method using MRI. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1995, 77(6):875-880.
• [14]Taylor M: Finite element analysis of the resurfaced femoral head. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2006, 220(2):289-297.
• [15]Mann KA, Bartel DL, Wright TM, Burstein AH: Coulomb frictional interfaces in modeling cemented total hip replacements: a more realistic model. J Biomech 1995, 28(9):1067-1078.
• [16]Watanabe Y, Shiba N, Matsuo S, Higuchi F, Tagawa Y, Inoue A: Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthroplasty 2000, 15(4):505-511.
• [17]Liu WG, Wang SJ, Yin QF, Liu SH, Guan YJ: Biomechanical supporting effect of tantalum rods for the femoral head with various sized lesions: a finite-element analysis. Chin Med J (Engl) 2012, 125(22):4061-4065.
• [18]Tran TN, Warwas S, Haversath M, Classen T, Hohn HP, Jäger M, Kowalczyk W, Landgraeber S: Experimental and computational studies on the femoral fracture risk for advanced core decompression. Clin Biomech 2014, 29(4):412-417.
• [19]Ong KL, Kurtz SM, Manley MT, Rushton N, Mohammed NA, Field RE: Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2006, 88(8):1110-1115.
• [20]De Smet KA: Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2005, 36(2):203-213. ix
• [21]Lian YY, Pei FX, Yoo MC, Cheng JQ, Fatou CY: Changes of the bone mineral density in proximal femur following total hip resurfacing arthroplasty in osteonecrosis of femoral head. J Orthop Res 2008, 26(4):453-459.
• [22]Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ: Hip resurfacing results for osteonecrosis are as good as for other etiologies at 2 to 12 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468(2):375-381.
• [23]Duijsens AW, Keizer S, Vliet-Vlieland T, Nelissen RG: Resurfacing hip prostheses revisited: failure analysis during a 16-year follow-up. Int Orthop 2005, 29(4):224-228.
• [24]Costi K, Howie DW, Campbell DG, McGee MA, Cornish BL: Long-term survival and reason for revision of Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010, 25(4):522-528.
• [25]Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ: The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2007, 89(11):1431-1438.
• [26]Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD, Hungerford DS: Outcomes of limited femoral resurfacing arthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16(8 Suppl 1):134-139.
• [27]George LL, Francis WC, Elizabeth AF: A Primer of Biomechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc; 1999.
• [28]Morlock MM, Bishop N, Ruther W, Delling G, Hahn M: Biomechanical, morphological and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2006, 220(2):333-344.