A Biomechanical Comparison of the Thrust Plate Prosthesis and a Stemmed Prosthesis

The thrust plate prosthesis (TPP) is a neck preserving femoral component in total hip arthroplasty (THA) which may facilitate more precise biomechanical reconstruction of the hip. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical results of the TPP with a conventional THA. We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 60 patients who had undergone cementless THA, with 44 who had undergone a TPP. We measured the hip centre of rotation, femoral offset, limb length, and neck-shaft angle. The horizontal hip centre of rotation, vertical femoral offset, limb length and neck-shaft angle measurements showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in both groups when compared with preoperative values. However, the vertical hip centre of rotation and horizontal femoral offset measurements were different only in TPP patients when compared with preoperative values (p<0.05). When both groups (TPP and THA) were compared only the horizontal hip centre of rotation displayed a significant difference (p=0.003) in favor of the THA. Therefore, we found no difference in restoring the biomechanics of the hip using the two methods, and only the horizontal hip centre of rotation restoration favoured the THA. Our findings indicate that the TPP does not produce more accurate restoration of leg length or offset. Reproduction of hip mechanics after TPP may not be as good as has been suggested.

[1]  A. Rawoot,et al.  The thrust plate prosthesis in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip. Clinical and radiological outcome with minimum 5-year follow-up. , 2008, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[2]  I. Gunal,et al.  Hip arthroplasty with the thrust plate prosthesis in patients of 65 years of age or older: 67 patients followed 2–7 years , 2008, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[3]  I. Gunal,et al.  Gait assessment in patients with thrust plate prosthesis and intramedullary stemmed prosthesis implanted to each hip , 2007, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[4]  M. Lavigne,et al.  Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  A. McCaskie,et al.  Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[6]  後藤 俊彦.  Biomechanical analysis and quantitative analysis of bone scintigraphy on thrust plate hip prosthesis , 2004 .

[7]  A. H. Huggler,et al.  A new approach towards hip-prosthesis design , 2004, Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery.

[8]  M. Silva,et al.  The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  M. Ochi,et al.  Bone-preserving prosthesis with a single axis for treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head: midterm results for the thrust plate hip prosthesis , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[10]  H. Bereiter,et al.  Finite Element Investigations of the Proximal Femur After Implantation of the Thrust Plate Prosthesis Compared with Findings in a Post-mortem Histological Specimen and in Radiological Follow-Up Examinations , 1997 .

[11]  H. A. C. Jacob,et al.  Biomechanical Principles and Design Details of the Thrust Plate Prosthesis , 1997 .

[12]  A. Huggler.  The Thrust Plate Prosthesis: A New Experience in Hip Surgery , 1997 .

[13]  Arnold H. Huggler,et al.  The Thrust Plate Hip Prosthesis , 1997, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[14]  H. Jacob,et al.  An investigation into biomechanical causes of prosthesis stem loosening within the proximal end of the human femur. , 1980, Journal of biomechanics.