Initial stability of cemented femoral stems as a function of surface finish, collar, and stem size.

BACKGROUND The optimum surface roughness of cemented femoral stems used for total hip replacement is a subject of controversy. While rougher surfaces provide stronger cement adhesion, it has been hypothesized that polished, tapered, noncollared stems settle into the cement mantle, providing improved stability. However, the effects of surface finish on the stability of straight, cemented stems tapered only in the coronal plane are not known. METHODS Using composite model femora, we assessed the initial stability of a straight, cemented femoral stem as a function of surface roughness, the presence or absence of a collar, stem size, and the resultant cement thickness under simulated walking and stair-climbing loads. Otherwise identical stems were manufactured with polished or rough surfaces, with or without a collar, in two different sizes. We isolated these three variables and compared their relative contributions to the motion at the stem-cement interface throughout cyclic loading. We defined three indicators of stability: per-cycle motion, rate of migration, and final migration. RESULTS Surface roughness had a greater influence on per-cycle motions than did the presence or absence of a collar or cement thickness. Specifically, in the medial-lateral direction, per-cycle motion of polished stems was 43 micro m greater than that of rough stems (p < 0.01). None of the per-cycle motions decreased over the 77,000 load cycles. In contrast, with all stems, the rate of migration decreased over the course of cyclic loading, but the rate of migration of the polished stems was greater than that of the rough stems. Final migrations of the stems over the course of loading were generally distal, medial, and into retroversion. Compared with rough stems, polished stems had 8 to 18 micro m more axial migration (p < 0.001), 48 micro m more anterior-posterior migration (p < 0.001), and 0.4 degrees more rotational migration (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS and CLINICAL RELEVANCE The results indicated that, for cemented, straight femoral stems tapered only in the coronal plane, a rough surface offers the advantage of less per-cycle motion. These results may apply to widely used cemented stem designs based on the profile of the original Charnley femoral component, which has approximately parallel anterior and posterior aspects.

[1]  R. Huiskes,et al.  Hip-joint and abductor-muscle forces adequately represent in vivo loading of a cemented total hip reconstruction. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  P Herberts,et al.  Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990. , 1993, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[3]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Surface roughness of debonded straight-tapered stems in cemented THA reduces subsidence but not cement damage. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[4]  J L Lewis,et al.  The influence of prosthetic stem stiffness and of a calcar collar on stresses in the proximal end of the femur with a cemented femoral component. , 1984, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  R. Crowninshield,et al.  An analysis of femoral component stem design in total hip arthroplasty. , 1980, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  W H Harris,et al.  Is It Advantageous to Strengthen the Cement‐Metal Interface and Use a Collar for Cemented Femoral Components of Total Hip Replacements? , 1992, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  J. Kärrholm,et al.  Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Mechanical effects of stem cement interface characteristics in total hip replacement. , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  A W Miles,et al.  The influence of the stem-cement interface in total hip replacement—a comparison of experimental and finite element approaches , 1997, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[10]  K. Markolf,et al.  The effect of calcar contact on femoral component micromovement. A mechanical study. , 1980, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  L Claes,et al.  Initial stability of fully and partially cemented femoral stems. , 2000, Clinical biomechanics.

[12]  The Cement Mantle in Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2006 .

[13]  A Sarmiento,et al.  The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  W. Maloney,et al.  Biomechanical and histologic investigation of cemented total hip arthroplasties. A study of autopsy-retrieved femurs after in vivo cycling. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  D. Collis,et al.  Loosening Rates and Bone Lysis With Rough Finished and Polished Stems , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Migration, Stem Shape, and Surface Finish in Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  L. Whiteside,et al.  The effect of axial and torsional loading on strain distribution in the proximal femur as related to cementless total hip arthroplasty. , 1993, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  Cemented arthroplasty: a long look back. , 1995, Orthopedics.

[19]  P J Prendergast,et al.  Mechanical simulation of muscle loading on the proximal femur: analysis of cemented femoral component migration with and without muscle loading. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[20]  D. Howie,et al.  Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  G. Marshall,et al.  Factors affecting surgical alloy/bone cement interface adhesion. , 1980, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[22]  T P Harrigan,et al.  A three-dimensional non-linear finite element study of the effect of cement-prosthesis debonding in cemented femoral total hip components. , 1991, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Effects of prosthesis surface roughness on the failure process of cemented hip implants after stem-cement debonding. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[24]  P J Gregg,et al.  A preliminary hip joint simulator study of the migration of a cemented femoral stem , 2003, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[25]  P G Niederer,et al.  Comparison of the stability of press‐fit hip prosthesis femoral stems using a synthetic model femur , 1991, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[26]  A. Sarmiento Certificates of added qualifications in orthopaedic surgery. A position against the certificates. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  A. J. Lee,et al.  Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. , 1988, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[28]  J CHARNLEY,et al.  THE ELIMINATION OF SLIP BETWEEN PROSTHESIS AND FEMUR. , 1965, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[29]  A Sarmiento,et al.  Stable partial debonding of the cement interfaces indicated by a finite element model of a total hip prosthesis , 1996, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[30]  Venkatesh Saligrama,et al.  Stem surface roughness alters creep induced subsidence and 'taper-lock' in a cemented femoral hip prosthesis. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  H. Amstutz,et al.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. , 1979, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[32]  J. Callaghan Precoat components: another look. , 1995, Orthopedics.

[33]  Dennis K Collis,et al.  Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Rough and Polished Cemented Stems with Essentially the Same Geometry , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  R. Ling,et al.  The Use of a Collar and Precoating on Cemented Femoral Stems Is Unnecessary and Detrimental , 1992, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[35]  D T Davy,et al.  Telemetric force measurements across the hip after total arthroplasty. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[36]  L. Nolte,et al.  Three-dimensional measurement of cemented femoral stem stability: an in vitro cadaver study. , 2000, Clinical Biomechanics.

[37]  R Huiskes,et al.  Mathematical shape optimization of hip prosthesis design. , 1989, Journal of biomechanics.

[38]  J Kärrholm,et al.  Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. A randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated, and porous-coated stems with roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. , 1994, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[39]  J CHARNLEY,et al.  Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. , 1960, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[40]  L A Whiteside,et al.  Rotational stability of noncemented total hip femoral components. , 1996, American journal of orthopedics.

[41]  A Rohlmann,et al.  Finite-element-analysis and experimental investigation in a femur with hip endoprosthesis. , 1983, Journal of biomechanics.