Femoral prosthesis implantation induces changes in bone stress that depend on the extent of porous coating

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of implantation of porous‐coated anatomic medullary fitting prostheses on stress in the proximal femur. Three‐dimensional finite element models of a cadaveric femur before and after implantation were used to evaluate the resulting changes in stress in the bone. Models of the femur were generated automatically from computed tomographic scan data with use of an innovative mesh‐generation technique. The models were analyzed for three levels of porous coating (proximal, 5/8, and full), with the assumption of ideal ingrowth (perfect bonding) over porous areas and a frictionless, tension‐free surface on smooth areas. All models were loaded and restrained to represent conditions of normal gait. The stresses predicted in the implanted femur are consistent with clinical observations of proximal cortical atrophy (normal stress reduced to 6‐9% of normal at the calcar and 50–55% at mid‐prosthesis) and of hypertrophy at the porous coating junctions (normal stress at the 5/8‐coating junction, 123% of stress proximal to the junction) and hypertrophy near the distal tip of the prosthesis (anterior and posterior normal stresses 200–800% of normal). The fully coated prosthesis induced stresses in the bone near the tip of the prosthesis that were most like stresses in the normal femur (medial and lateral normal stress 105 and 102% of the stress in the normal femur). Below the collar, the normal stress associated with the proximally coated prosthesis was 6% greater than that produced with the other two levels of coating but still was only 2% of normal. The 5/8‐coated prosthesis appeared to combine the worst features of the fully coated and proximally coated prostheses–greater stress‐shielding at the calcar and higher stress near the tip of the prosthesis.

[1]  R. Huiskes The various stress patterns of press-fit, ingrown, and cemented femoral stems. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  C. Engh,et al.  The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  W. Hayes,et al.  The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. , 1977, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  D. Carter,et al.  A unifying principle relating stress to trabecular bone morphology , 1986, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[5]  H Weinans,et al.  Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty. , 1989, Orthopedics.

[6]  J. Szivek,et al.  The effect of proximally and fully porous‐coated canine hip stem design on bone modeling , 1987, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[7]  J H Keyak,et al.  Estimation of material properties in the equine metacarpus with use of quantitative computed tomography , 1994, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[8]  W H Harris,et al.  A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  E. Schneider,et al.  Estimation of mechanical properties of cortical bone by computed tomography , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[10]  J. Galante,et al.  A comparative study of porous coatings in a weight-bearing total hip-arthroplasty model. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  H. Grootenboer,et al.  Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[12]  J J Callaghan,et al.  The uncemented porous-coated anatomic total hip prosthesis. Two-year results of a prospective consecutive series. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  L. Lanyon,et al.  Osteoregulatory nature of mechanical stimuli: Function as a determinant for adaptive remodeling in bone , 1987, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[14]  T P Andriacchi,et al.  Computed tomographic measurement of cortical bone geometry. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  R. Volz,et al.  The current status of total joint replacement. , 1990, Investigative radiology.

[16]  A Rohlmann,et al.  A nonlinear finite element analysis of interface conditions in porous coated hip endoprostheses. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  J H Keyak,et al.  Validation of an automated method of three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone. , 1993, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[18]  D P Fyhrie,et al.  Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. , 1987, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  N. Rydell Forces acting on the femoral head-prosthesis. A study on strain gauge supplied prostheses in living persons. , 1966, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[20]  H. Genant,et al.  Precise measurement of vertebral mineral content using computed tomography. , 1980, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[21]  A L Yettram,et al.  Effect of interface conditions on the behaviour of a Freeman hip endoprosthesis. , 1989, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[22]  Peter Seitz,et al.  Fast Contour Detection Algorithm for High Precision Quantitative CT , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  H. Skinner Isoelasticity and total hip arthroplasty. , 1991, Orthopedics.

[24]  R. Brand,et al.  Toward an identification of mechanical parameters initiating periosteal remodeling: a combined experimental and analytic approach. , 1990, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  Engh Ca,et al.  The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. , 1988 .

[26]  F. Linde,et al.  X-ray quantitative computed tomography: the relations to physical properties of proximal tibial trabecular bone specimens. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[27]  A R Ingraffea,et al.  Mechanical characteristics of the stem‐cement interface , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[28]  C. Engh,et al.  Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. , 1987, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[29]  H. Skinner,et al.  Decreased pain with lower flexural rigidity of uncemented femoral prostheses. , 1990, Orthopedics.

[30]  J H Keyak,et al.  Automated three-dimensional finite element modelling of bone: a new method. , 1990, Journal of biomedical engineering.

[31]  W. Hayes,et al.  Role of loads and prosthesis material properties on the mechanics of the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty , 1992, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.