A biomechanical testing system to determine micromotion between hip implant and femur accounting for deformation of the hip implant: Assessment of the influence of rigid body assumptions on micromotions measurements

Background: Accurate pre‐clinical evaluation of the initial stability of new cementless hip stems using in vitro micromotion measurements is an important step in the design process to assess the new stem's potential. Several measuring systems, linear variable displacement transducer‐based and other, require assuming bone or implant to be rigid to obtain micromotion values or to calculate derived quantities such as relative implant tilting. Methods: An alternative linear variable displacement transducer‐based measuring system not requiring a rigid body assumption was developed in this study. The system combined advantages of local unidirectional and frame–and–bracket micromotion measuring concepts. The influence and possible errors that would be made by adopting a rigid body assumption were quantified. Furthermore, as the system allowed emulating local unidirectional and frame–and–bracket systems, the influence of adopting rigid body assumptions were also analyzed for both concepts. Synthetic and embalmed bone models were tested in combination with primary and revision implants. Single‐legged stance phase loading was applied to the implant – bone constructs. Findings: Adopting a rigid body assumption resulted in an overestimation of mediolateral micromotion of up to 49.7 &mgr;m at more distal measuring locations. Maximal average relative rotational motion was overestimated by 0.12° around the anteroposterior axis. Frontal and sagittal tilting calculations based on a unidirectional measuring concept underestimated the true tilting by an order of magnitude. Interpretation: Non‐rigid behavior is a factor that should not be dismissed in micromotion stability evaluations of primary and revision femoral implants. Highlights:Implant and bone motion can be measured simultaneously at several locations.Non‐rigid behavior has a major influence on implant stability measurement results.Under a rigid body assumption, distal micromotion was overestimated by up to 49.7 &mgr;m.Under a rigid body assumption, relative rotational motion was overestimated by up to 0.12°.

[1]  Werner Schmoelz,et al.  Effects of three different preservation methods on the mechanical properties of human and bovine cortical bone. , 2010, Bone.

[2]  L Cristofolini,et al.  On the Biomechanical Stability of Cementless Straight Conical Hip Stems , 2006, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

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

[4]  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.

[5]  Angelo Cappello,et al.  Response to Letter to the Editor: Comparative in vitro study on the long-term performance of cemented hip stems: Validation of a protocol to discriminate between ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘bad’’ designs , 2006 .

[6]  P Zioupos,et al.  Effect of formaldehyde fixation on some mechanical properties of bovine bone. , 1995, Biomaterials.

[7]  A. Aamodt,et al.  In vitro testing of the deformation pattern and initial stability of a cementless stem coupled to an experimental femoral head, with increased offset and altered femoral neck angles , 2011, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

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

[9]  P J Prendergast,et al.  Measurement of the migration of a cemented hip prosthesis in an in vitro test. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[10]  Unger Stefan,et al.  Effects of three different preservation methods on the mechanical properties of human and bovine cortical bone. , 2010 .

[11]  Patrick J Prendergast,et al.  Preclinical testing of femoral hip components: an experimental investigation with four prostheses. , 2005, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[12]  Volkmar Jansson,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of different offset versions of a cementless hip prosthesis by 3-dimensional measurement of micromotions. , 2011, Clinical biomechanics.

[13]  L Cristofolini,et al.  Methods for quantitative analysis of the primary stability in uncemented hip prostheses. , 1999, Artificial organs.

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

[15]  P J Prendergast,et al.  Discriminating the loosening behaviour of cemented hip prostheses using measurements of migration and inducible displacement. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[16]  A W Miles,et al.  A review of pre-clinical testing of femoral stem subsidence and comparison with clinical data , 2007, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[17]  D. W. Bühler,et al.  Design and evaluation of a device for measuring three-dimensional micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses. , 1997, Medical engineering & physics.

[18]  Andreas Fottner,et al.  Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to the trust plate prosthesis by three-dimensional measurement of micromotions. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[19]  Barbara Bordini,et al.  Long-term survivorship and complication rate comparison of a cementless modular stem and cementless fixed neck stems for primary total hip replacement , 2015, International Orthopaedics.

[20]  J. P. Paul,et al.  Comparative in vitro study on the long-term performance of cemented hip stems: validation of a protocol to discriminate between "good" and "bad" designs. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[22]  Jomar Klaksvik,et al.  Initial stability of an uncemented femoral stem with modular necks. An experimental study in human cadaver femurs. , 2014, Clinical biomechanics.

[23]  Alexandre Terrier,et al.  A new technique to measure micromotion distribution around a cementless femoral stem. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

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

[25]  Lutz Claes,et al.  Primary stability in cementless femoral stems: custom-made versus conventional femoral prosthesis. , 2002, Clinical biomechanics.

[26]  Y. Yoon,et al.  In vitro measurement of interface micromotion and crack in cemented total hip arthroplasty systems with different surface roughness. , 2010, Clinical biomechanics.

[27]  Ara Nazarian,et al.  Effects of tissue preservation on murine bone mechanical properties. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  Sebastian Huss,et al.  Embalmed and fresh frozen human bones in orthopedic cadaveric studies: which bone is authentic and feasible? , 2012, Acta orthopaedica.

[29]  Lutz Dürselen,et al.  Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.

[30]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Response to the comments on ‘Experimental versus computational analysis of micromotions at the implant - bone interface’ , 2012 .

[31]  Amir A Jamali,et al.  The effect of surface finish and of vertical ribs on the stability of a cemented femoral stem: an in vitro stair climbing test. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[32]  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.

[33]  N Verdonschot,et al.  Experimental versus Computational Analysis of Micromotions at the Implant—Bone Interface , 2011, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[34]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Partially cemented AncaDualFit hip stems do not fail in simulated active patients. , 2007, Clinical biomechanics.

[35]  C. Bourgeault,et al.  In Vitro Stability of Cemented and Cementless Femoral Stems With Compaction , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[36]  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.

[37]  Sebastian Kuhn,et al.  Influence of formalin fixation on the biomechanical properties of human diaphyseal bone , 2010, Biomedizinische Technik. Biomedical engineering.

[38]  M A Ritter,et al.  Long-term comparison of the Charnley, Muller, and Trapezoidal-28 total hip prostheses. A survival analysis. , 1987, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[39]  Thomas R Oxland,et al.  Open Access Research Article the Effect of Abductor Muscle and Anterior-posterior Hip Contact Load Simulation on the In-vitro Primary Stability of a Cementless Hip Stem , 2022 .

[40]  D. W. Bühler,et al.  Three-dimensional primary stability of cementless femoral stems. , 1997, Clinical biomechanics.

[41]  W. Harris,et al.  In Vivo Skeletal Responses to Porous-Surfaced Implants Subjected to Small Induced Motions* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[42]  B. F. Morrey Biomechanical evaluation of two types of short-stemmed hip prostheses compared to the trust plate prosthesis by three-dimensional measurement of micromotions , 2010 .

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

[44]  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.

[45]  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.

[46]  R E Jones,et al.  Comparative micromotion of fully and proximally cemented femoral stems. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[47]  D W Murray,et al.  Long-term comparison of Charnley and Stanmore design total hip replacements. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[48]  M. Thomsen,et al.  Fixation of the shorter cementless GTS™ stem: biomechanical comparison between a conventional and an innovative implant design , 2014, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[49]  H. Willert,et al.  Five- to 10-year results using a noncemented modular revision stem without bone grafting. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[50]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  The effects of embalming using a 4% formalin solution on the compressive mechanical properties of human cortical bone. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[51]  Angelo Cappello,et al.  Comparative in vitro study on the long term performance of cemented hip stems: validation of a protocol to discriminate between "good" and "bad" designs. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[52]  Stefano Artiaco,et al.  Clinical Experience in Femoral Revision with the Modular Profemur R Stem , 2011, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[53]  Mahyar Hamedi,et al.  Primary Stability Recognition of the Newly Designed Cementless Femoral Stem Using Digital Signal Processing , 2014, BioMed research international.

[54]  K Püschel,et al.  Migration and cyclic motion of a new short-stemmed hip prosthesis--a biomechanical in vitro study. , 2006, Clinical biomechanics.

[55]  Peter S Walker,et al.  Evaluation of femoral strains with cementless proximal-fill femoral implants of varied stem length. , 2012, Clinical biomechanics.