Pre-clinical evaluation of ceramic femoral head resurfacing prostheses using computational models and mechanical testing

Ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing can potentially offer the bone-conserving advantages of resurfacing while eliminating metal ion release. Thin-walled ceramic resurfacing heads are conceivable following developments in the strength and reliability of ceramic materials, but verification of new designs is required. The present study aimed to develop a mechanical pre-clinical analysis verification process for ceramic resurfacing heads, using the DeltaSurf prosthesis design as a case study. Finite element analysis of a range of in vivo scenarios was used to design a series of physiologically representative mechanical tests, which were conducted to verify the strength of the prosthesis. Tests were designed to simulate ideal and worst-case in vivo loading and support, or to allow comparison with a clinically successful metallic device. In tests simulating ideal loading and support, the prosthesis sustained a minimum load of 39 kN before fracture, and survived 10 000 000 fatigue cycles of 0.534 kN to 5.34 kN. In worst-case tests representing a complete lack of superior femoral head bone support or pure cantilever loading of the prosthesis stem, the design demonstrated strength comparable to that of the equivalent metal device. The developed mechanical verification test programme represents an improvement in the state of the art where international test standards refer largely to total hip replacement prostheses. The case study’s novel prosthesis design performed with considerable safety margins compared with extreme in vivo loads, providing evidence that the proposed ceramic resurfacing heads should have sufficient strength to perform safely in vivo. Similar verification tests should be designed and conducted for novel ceramic prosthesis designs in the future, leading the way to clinical evaluation.

[1]  B. Pal,et al.  Influence of the change in stem length on the load transfer and bone remodelling for a cemented resurfaced femur. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[2]  A. Taylor,et al.  Performance of the resurfaced hip. Part 2: The influence of prosthesis stem design on remodelling and fracture of the femoral neck , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[3]  M Browne,et al.  Performance of the resurfaced hip. Part 1: The influence of the prosthesis size and positioning on the remodelling and fracture of the femoral neck , 2010, Proceedings of the Institution of mechanical engineers. Part H, journal of engineering in medicine.

[4]  J. Fisher,et al.  Ceramic-on-metal Bearings in Total Hip Replacement Whole Blood Metal Ion Levels and Analysis of Retrieved Components Using a Radiological Measurement of Orientation Lewinnek Et Al , 2022 .

[5]  P. Campbell,et al.  Metal sensitivity as a cause of groin pain in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  Michael A Mont,et al.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  D W Murray,et al.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  D J Beard,et al.  The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  D Mitton,et al.  An anatomical subject-specific FE-model for hip fracture load prediction , 2008, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering.

[10]  W. Walter,et al.  Third-generation alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[11]  P. Campbell,et al.  The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  Zhongmin Jin,et al.  Friction of total hip replacements with different bearings and loading conditions. , 2007, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[13]  S M Kurtz,et al.  Biomechanics of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  S J Eastaugh-Waring,et al.  Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[15]  D. Mcminn,et al.  History and modern concepts in surface replacement , 2006, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[16]  W Rüther,et al.  Biomechanical, morphological, and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty , 2006, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[17]  M Taylor,et al.  Finite element analysis of the resurfaced femoral head. , 2006, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[18]  P. Roberts,et al.  Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing , 2005, Scottish medical journal.

[19]  E. Ebramzadeh,et al.  Preservation of bone mineral density of the proximal femur following hemisurface arthroplasty. , 2004, Orthopedics.

[20]  G. Bergmann,et al.  Hip joint contact forces during stumbling , 2004, Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.

[21]  Laurent Sedel,et al.  Alumina-on-Alumina Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Minimum 18.5-Year Follow-up Study , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  G. Willmann Improving Bearing Surfaces of Artificial Joints , 2001 .

[23]  A Unsworth,et al.  A frictional study of total hip joint replacements. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  H. Skinner,et al.  Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. , 1997, Journal of biomechanics.

[25]  H. Fredin,et al.  Dislocations and the Femoral Head Size in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  Harlan C. Amstutz,et al.  Metal on Metal Surface Replacement of the Hip: Technique, Fixation, and Early Results , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[27]  W. Capello,et al.  Conservative total hip arthroplasty. , 1982, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[28]  M. Freeman,et al.  ICLH cemented double cup hip replacement , 1978, Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery.

[29]  K. Knahr,et al.  Cement-free bioceramic double-cup endoprosthesis of the hip-joint. , 1978, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  S. Kawachi,et al.  Socket-cup arthroplasty. , 1978, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[31]  M. Lavigne,et al.  Metal ion release from bearing wear and corrosion with 28 mm and large-diameter metal-on-metal bearing articulations: a follow-up study. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[32]  Aaron K. Schachter,et al.  Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. , 2009, Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases.

[33]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  Subject-specific finite element models implementing a maximum principal strain criterion are able to estimate failure risk and fracture location on human femurs tested in vitro. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[34]  R. Trousdale,et al.  Stem fracture after hemiresurfacing for femoral head osteonecrosis. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[35]  B. Frémont,et al.  SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA , 2002 .