The influence of uncemented femoral stem length and design on its primary stability: a finite element analysis

One of the crucial factors for short- and long-term clinical success of total hip arthroplasty cementless implants is primary stability. Indeed, motion at the bone–implant interface above 40 μm leads to partial bone ingrowth, while motion exceeding 150 μm completely inhibits bone ingrowth. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two cementless femoral stem designs with different lengths on the primary stability. A finite element model of a composite Sawbones® fourth generation, implanted with five lengths of the straight prosthesis design and four lengths of the curved prosthesis design, was loaded with hip joint and abductor forces representing two physiological activities: fast walking and stair climbing. We found that reducing the straight stem length from 146 to 54 mm increased the average micromotion from 17 to 52 μm during fast walking, while the peak value increased from 42 to 104 μm. With the curved stem, reducing length from 105 to 54 mm increased the average micromotion from 10 to 29 μm, while the peak value increased from 37 to 101 μm. Similar findings are obtained for stair climbing for both stems. Although the present study showed that femoral stem length as well as stem design directly influences its primary stability, for the two femoral stems tested, length could be reduced substantially without compromising the primary stability. With the aim of minimising surgical invasiveness, newer femoral stem design and currently well performing stems might be used with a reduced length without compromising primary stability and hence, long-term survivorship.

[1]  Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir,et al.  Interface Micromotion of Cementless Hip Stems in Simulated Hip Arthroplasty , 2009 .

[2]  Nobuhiko Sugano,et al.  Stem length and canal filling in uncemented custom-made total hip arthroplasty , 1999, International Orthopaedics.

[3]  N. Santori,et al.  Proximal load transfer with a stemless uncemented femoral implant , 2006, Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.

[4]  Rina Sakai,et al.  Assessment of the fixation stiffness of some femoral stems of different designs. , 2006, Clinical biomechanics.

[5]  J. M. Lee,et al.  Observations on the Effect of Movement on Bone Ingrowth into Porous‐Surfaced Implants , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  Luis Gracia,et al.  Long-term study of bone remodelling after femoral stem: a comparison between dexa and finite element simulation. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[7]  B. Skallerud,et al.  Subject specific finite element analysis of implant stability for a cementless femoral stem. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[8]  B Reggiani,et al.  Predicting the subject-specific primary stability of cementless implants during pre-operative planning: preliminary validation of subject-specific finite-element models. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  T P Andriacchi,et al.  Stem curvature and load angle influence the initial relative bone‐implant motion of cementless femoral stems , 1993, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  M. Viceconti,et al.  Sensitivity of the primary stability of a cementless hip stem to its position and orientation. , 2008, Artificial organs.

[11]  A. Heiner.  Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  A prospective short-term outcome study of a short metaphyseal fitting total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  A. Amis,et al.  Finite element modelling of primary hip stem stability: the effect of interference fit. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  M. Heller,et al.  Stair climbing is more critical than walking in pre-clinical assessment of primary stability in cementless THA in vitro. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  I. Learmonth.  ii) Conservative hip implants , 2005 .

[16]  M Honl,et al.  Duration and frequency of every day activities in total hip patients. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  Yong-San Yoon,et al.  Primary stability of cementless stem in THA improved with reduced interfacial gaps. , 2008, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[18]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Primary stability of a robodoc implanted anatomical stem versus manual implantation. , 2004, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  V. Bousson,et al.  Prediction of mechanical properties of cortical bone by quantitative computed tomography. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[20]  Joanne B. Adams,et al.  A Short Tapered Stem Reduces Intraoperative Complications in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  N. Pratt,et al.  Lower prosthesis-specific 10-year revision rate with crosslinked than with non-crosslinked polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty , 2015, Acta Orthopaedica.

[22]  Michael M Morlock,et al.  Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  Relative Motion of Hip Stems under Load , 2006 .

[25]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[26]  J J Callaghan,et al.  The effect of femoral stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented porous-coated total hip prostheses. Comparison of straight-stem and curved-stem designs. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  Stuart B Goodman,et al.  A conical-collared intramedullary stem can improve stress transfer and limit micromotion. , 2004, Clinical biomechanics.

[28]  J Hassenpflug,et al.  The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty , 2004, Journal of Zhejiang University. Science.

[29]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  The role of parameter identification in finite element contact analyses with reference to orthopaedic biomechanics applications. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[30]  H. Baba,et al.  Nonlinear three-dimensional finite element analysis of newly designed cementless total hip stems. , 1999, Artificial organs.

[31]  M Honl,et al.  Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: the implant-bone interface. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[32]  Zdenek Horak,et al.  Comparison of an inhomogeneous orthotropic and isotropic material models used for FE analyses. , 2008, Medical engineering & physics.

[33]  M. Viceconti,et al.  Even a thin layer of soft tissue may compromise the primary stability of cementless hip stems. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[34]  Robert B Bourne,et al.  A quantitative analysis of bone support comparing cementless tapered and distal fixation total hip replacements. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[35]  E. Lautenschlager,et al.  Mechanical properties of human cancellous bone in the femoral head , 1974, Medical and biological engineering.

[36]  L Cristofolini,et al.  The 'standardized femur program' proposal for a reference geometry to be used for the creation of finite element models of the femur. , 1996, Journal of biomechanics.

[37]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  The primary stability of a cementless stem varies between subjects as much as between activities. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[38]  M. Kadir,et al.  THE EFFECT OF PHYSIOLOGICAL LOAD CONFIGURATION ON INTERFACE MICROMOTION IN CEMENTLESS FEMORAL STEMS , 2007 .

[39]  M. Ivimey.  Annual report , 1958, IRE Transactions on Engineering Writing and Speech.

[40]  Jomar Klaksvik,et al.  Primary stability of custom and anatomical uncemented femoral stems: a method for three-dimensional in vitro measurement of implant stability. , 2010, Clinical biomechanics.

[41]  N. Pratt,et al.  The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry , 2004, Bone & Joint Open.

[42]  L Cristofolini,et al.  Large-sliding contact elements accurately predict levels of bone-implant micromotion relevant to osseointegration. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[43]  K. Radermacher,et al.  Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. , 2000, Journal of biomechanics.

[44]  Yong-San Yoon,et al.  Statistical analysis of interfacial gap in a cementless stem FE model. , 2009, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[45]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Primary stability of an anatomical cementless hip stem: a statistical analysis. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[46]  P. Emans,et al.  Comparison of two hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems: clinical, functional, and bone densitometry evaluation of patients randomized to a regular or modified hydroxyapatite-coated stem aimed at proximal fixation. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[47]  P S Walker,et al.  Relative motion of hip stems under load. An in vitro study of symmetrical, asymmetrical, and custom asymmetrical designs. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.