Influence of prosthesis design and implantation technique on implant stresses after cementless revision THR

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Carsten Perka¹  Georg N Duda¹  Andrew Speirs¹  Dong-Yeong Kim¹  William R Taylor¹  Manav Mehta¹  Markus O Heller¹ 

[1] Julius Wolff Institute and Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany

关键词: computational modelling;    physiological loading;    surgical technique;    implant design;    implant stresses;    revision hip arthroplasty;   

Others  :  823719
DOI  :  10.1186/1749-799X-6-20

 received in 2010-07-16, accepted in 2011-05-13,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

Femoral offset influences the forces at the hip and the implant stresses after revision THR. For extended bone defects, these forces may cause considerable bending moments within the implant, possibly leading to implant failure. This study investigates the influences of femoral anteversion and offset on stresses in the Wagner SL revision stem implant under varying extents of bone defect conditions.

Methods

Wagner SL revision stems with standard (34 mm) and increased offset (44 mm) were virtually implanted in a model femur with bone defects of variable extent (Paprosky I to IIIb). Variations in surgical technique were simulated by implanting the stems each at 4° or 14° of anteversion. Muscle and joint contact forces were applied to the reconstruction and implant stresses were determined using finite element analyses.

Results

Whilst increasing the implant's offset by 10 mm led to increased implant stresses (16.7% in peak tensile stresses), altering anteversion played a lesser role (5%). Generally, larger stresses were observed with reduced bone support: implant stresses increased by as much as 59% for a type IIIb defect. With increased offset, the maximum tensile stress was 225 MPa.

Conclusion

Although increased stresses were observed within the stem with larger offset and increased anteversion, these findings indicate that restoration of offset, key to restoring joint function, is unlikely to result in excessive implant stresses under routine activities if appropriate fixation can be achieved.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Heller et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sporer S, Paprosky W: Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 203-209.
• [2]Morrey BF, Kavanagh BF: Complications with revision of the femoral component of total hip arthroplasty: Comparison between cemented and uncemented techniques. Journal of Arthroplasty 1992, 7:71-79.
• [3]Mulroy W, Harris W: Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. A fifteen-year-average follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996, 78:325-330.
• [4]Wagner H, Wagner M: Conus hip prosthesis. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech 2001, 68:213-221.
• [5]Böhm P, Bischel O: Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem: Evaluation of one hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001, 83:1023-1031.
• [6]Mantelos G, Koulouvaris P, Kotsovolos H, Xenakis T: Consistent new bone formation in 95 revisions: average 9-year follow-up. Orthopedics 2008, 31:654.
• [7]Gutierrez Del Alamo J, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Castellanos V, Gil-Garay E: Radiographic bone regeneration and clinical outcome with the Wagner SL revision stem: a 5-year to 12-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:515-524.
• [8]Isacson J, Stark A, Wallensten R: The Wagner revision prosthesis consistently restores femoral bone structure. International Orthopaedics 2000, 24:139-142.
• [9]Han CD, Yang IW, Park J: Femoral Revision with the Wagner SL Revision Stem. J Korean Orthop Assoc 2007, 42:241-248.
• [10]Kolstad K, Adalberth G, Mallmin H, Milbrink J, Sahlstedt B: The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1996, 67:541-544.
• [11]Hodge WA, Andriacchi TP, Galante JO: A relationship between stem orientation and function following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1991, 6:229-235.
• [12]Cheal EJ, Spector M, Hayes WC: Role of loads and prosthesis material properties on the mechanics of the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1992, 10:405-422.
• [13]Ovesen O, Emmeluth C, Hofbauer C, Overgaard S: Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Modular Tapered Stem With Distal Fixation: Good Short-Term Results in 125 Revisions. J Arthroplasty 2010, 25:348-354.
• [14]Regis D, Sandri A, Bartolozzi P: Stem modularity alone is not effective in reducing dislocation rate in hip revision surgery. J Orthop Traumatol 2009, 10:167-171.
• [15]Bader R, Barbano R, Mittelmeier W: Treatment of recurrent dislocation associated with impingement after revision total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 2005, 71:98-101.
• [16]Charles MN, Bourne RB, Davey JR, Greenwald AS, Morrey BF, Rorabeck CH: Soft-tissue balancing of the hip: the role of femoral offset restoration. Instr Course Lect 2005, 54:131-141.
• [17]Crowninshield R, Maloney W, Wentz D, Levine D: The role of proximal femoral support in stress development within hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 176-180.
• [18]Dorr LD, Wan Z: Causes of and treatment protocol for instability of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998, 144-151.
• [19]Heller MO, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Claes L, Haas NP, Duda GN: Influence of femoral anteversion on proximal femoral loading: measurement and simulation in four patients. Clin Biomech 2001, 16:644-649.
• [20]Heller MO, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Dürselen L, Pohl M, Claes L, Haas NP, Duda GN: Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech 2001, 34:883-893.
• [21]Duda GN, Heller M, Albinger J, Schulz O, Schneider E, Claes L: Influence of muscle forces on femoral strain distribution. J Biomech 1998, 31:841-846.
• [22]Kleemann RU, Heller MO, Stoeckle U, Taylor WR, Duda GN: THA loading arising from increased femoral anteversion and offset may lead to critical cement stresses. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2003, 21:767-774.
• [23]Bougherara H, Zdero R, Shah S, Miric M, Papini M, Zalzal P, Schemitsch E: A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements. Journal of Orthop Surg and Res 2010, 5:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Taylor WR, Heller MO, Bergmann G, Duda GN: Tibio-femoral loading during human gait and stair climbing. J Orthop Res 2004, 22:625-632.
• [25]Paprosky WG, Bradford MS, Younger TI: Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov 1994, 79:285-291.
• [26]Reilly DTBA, Frankel VH: The elastic modulus for bone. J Biomech Eng 1974, 7:271-275.
• [27]Speirs AD, Heller MO, Duda GN, Taylor WR: Physiologically based boundary conditions in finite element modelling. J Biomech 2006, 40:2318-2323.
• [28]Windler M, Klabunde R: Titanium for Medical Applications; Titanium in Medicine; Part V - Medical Applications. Springer Verlag 2001.
• [29]Murphy SB, Rodriguez J: Revision total hip arthroplasty with proximal bone loss. J Arthroplasty 2004, 19:115-119.
• [30]Buttaro MA, Mayor MB, Van Citters D, Piccaluga F: Fatigue fracture of a proximally modular, distally tapered fluted implant with diaphyseal fixation. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:780-783.
• [31]Garbuz DS, Toms A, Masri BA, Duncan CP: Improved outcome in femoral revision arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular titanium stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:199-202.
• [32]Woolson ST, Milbauer JP, Bobyn JD, Yue S, Maloney WJ: Fatigue Fracture of a Forged Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Femoral Component Inserted with Cement. A Report of Ten Cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997, 79:1842-1848.
• [33]Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A: Hip joint contact forces during stumbling. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2004, 389:53-59.
• [34]Steinberg B, Harris W: The "Offset" Problem in Total Hip Artroplasty. Contemporary Orthopaedics 1992, 24:556-562.
• [35]Davey JR, O'Connor DO, Burke DW, Harris WH: Femoral component offset. Its effect on strain in bone-cement. J Arthroplasty 1993, 8:23-26.