Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of cement on hip stem fixation: a biomechanical study

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study presents the numerical analysis of stem fixation in hip surgery using with/without cement methods since the use of cement is still controversial based on the clinical studies in the literature. Many different factors such as stress shielding, aseptic loosening, material properties of the stem, surgeon experiences etc. play an important role in the failure of the stem fixations. The stem fixation methods, cemented and uncemented, were evaluated in terms of mechanical failure aspects using computerized finite element method. For the modeling processes, three dimensional (3D) femur model was generated from computerized tomography (CT) images taken from a patient using the MIMICS Software. The design of the stem was also generated as 3D CAD model using the design parameters taken from the manufacturer catalogue. These 3D CAD models were generated and combined with/without cement considering the surgical procedure using SolidWorks program and then imported into ANSYS Workbench Software. Two different material properties, CoCrMo and Ti6Al4V, for the stem model and Poly Methyl Methacrylate (PMMA) for the cement were assigned. The material properties of the femur were described according to a density calculated from the CT images. Body weight and muscle forces were applied on the femur and the distal femur was fixed for the boundary conditions. The calculations of the stress distributions of the models including cement and relative movements of the contacts examined to evaluate the effects of the cement and different stem material usage on the failure of stem fixation. According to the results, the use of cement for the stem fixation reduces the stress shielding but increases the aseptic loosening depending on the cement crack formations. Additionally, using the stiffer material for the stem reduces the cement stress but increases the stress shielding. Based on the results obtained in the study, even when taking the disadvantages into account, the cement usage is more suitable for the hip fixations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huddleston HD (1988) Femoral lysis after cemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:285–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Harris WH, Mcgann WA (1986) Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary-plug cementing technique—follow-up note with a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68a:1064–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Unnanuntana A, Dimitroulias A, Bolognesi MP, Hwang KL, Goodman SB, Marcus RE (2009) Cementless femoral prostheses cost more to implant than cemented femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat R 467:1546–1551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, Mont MA (2011) Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93a:500–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bordini B, Stea S, De Clerico M, Strazzari S, Sasdelli A, Toni A (2007) Factors affecting aseptic loosening of 4750 total hip arthroplasties: multivariate survival analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:69

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Makela KT, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P, Remes V (2008) Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2160–2170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hailer NP, Garellick G, Karrholm J (2010) Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Evaluation of 170,413 operations. Acta Orthop 81:34–41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Weiss RJ, Hailer NP, Stark A, Karrholm J (2012) Survival of uncemented acetabular monoblock cups: evaluation of 210 hips in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 83:214–219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW, National Joint Registry For E, Wales (2012) Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 380:1759–1766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE (2000) The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 71:337–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sueyoshi T, Berend ME, Meding JB, Malinzak RA, Lackey WG, Ritter MA (2015) Changes in femoral stem geometry reduce intraoperative femoral fracture rates in total hip replacement. Open J Orthop 5:115–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lucht U (2000) The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand 71:433–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Eskelinen A, Remes V, Helenius I, Pulkkinen P, Nevalainen J, Paavolainen P (2005) Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register—4661 primary replacements followed for 0–22 years. Acta Orthop 76:28–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Stringer M, Frampton C (2009) Revision following cemented and uncemented primary total hip replacement: a seven-year analysis from the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg British Vol 91:451–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Makela KT, Matilainen M, Pulkkinen P, Fenstad AM, Havelin L, Engesaeter L, Furnes O, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S, Karrholm J, Malchau H, Garellick G, Ranstam J, Eskelinen A (2014) Failure rate of cemented and uncemented total hip replacements: register study of combined Nordic database of four nations. Bmj-Brit Med J 348:f7592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdulkarim A, Ellanti P, Motterlini N, Fahey T, O’byrne JM (2013) Cemented versus uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 5:e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Meding JB, Ritter MA, Davis KE, Hillery M (2016) Cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using the same femoral component. Hip Int 26:62–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramos A, Completo A, Relvas C, Simoes JA (2012) Design process of a novel cemented hip femoral stem concept. Mater Des 33:313–321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramos A, Simoes JA (2009) The influence of cement mantle thickness and stem geometry on fatigue damage in two different cemented hip femoral prostheses. J Biomech 42:2602–2610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kayabasi O, Ekici B (2007) The effects of static, dynamic and fatigue behavior on three-dimensional shape optimization of hip prosthesis by finite element method. Mater Design 28:2269–2277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Senalp AZ, Kayabasi O, Kurtaran H (2007) Static, dynamic and fatigue behavior of newly designed stem shapes for hip prosthesis using finite element analysis. Mater Des 28:1577–1583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rho JY, Hobatho MC, Ashman RB (1995) Relations of mechanical-properties to density and Ct numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys 17:347–355

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Higa M, Tanino H, Nishimura I, Mitamura Y, Matsuno T, Ito H (2015) Three-dimensional shape optimization of a cemented hip stem and experimental validations. J Artif Organs 18:79–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Norman TL, Shultz T, Noble G, Gruen TA, Blaha JD (2013) Bone creep and short and long term subsidence after cemented stem total hip arthroplasty (THA). J Biomech 46:949–955

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oshkour AA, Davoodi MM, Abu Osman NA, Yau YH, Tarlochan F, Abas WaBW (2013) Finite element analysis of circumferential crack behavior in cement-femoral prosthesis interface. Mater Design 49:96–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Leyvraz PF (2000) The fixation of the cemented femoral component—effects of stem stiffness, cement thickness and roughness of the cement-bone surface. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82b:297–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oshkour AA, Abu Osman NA, Bayat M, Afshar R, Berto F (2014) Three-dimensional finite element analyses of functionally graded femoral prostheses with different geometrical configurations. Mater Design 56:998–1008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rancourt D, Shiraziadl A, Drouin G, Paiement G (1990) Friction properties of the interface between porous-surfaced metals and tibial cancellous bone. J Biomed Mater Res 24:1503–1519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen WP, Tai CL, Lee MS, Lee PC, Liu CP, Shih CH (2004) Comparison of stress shielding among different cement fixation modes of femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty—a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Med Biol Eng 24:183–187

    Google Scholar 

  30. Goshulak P, Samiezadeh S, Aziz MS, Bougherara H, Zdero R, Schemitsch EH (2016) The biomechanical effect of anteversion and modular neck offset on stress shielding for short-stem versus conventional long-stem hip implants. Med Eng Phys 38:232–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, Duda GN (2001) Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 34:859–871

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Duda GN, Schneider E, Chao EYS (1997) Internal forces and moments in the femur during walking. J Biomech 30:933–941

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, Oconnor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH (1997) In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79a:707–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ridzwan MIZ, Shuib S, Hassan AY, Shokri AA, Ibrahim MM (2007) Problem of stress shielding and improvement to the hip implant designs: a review. J Med Sci 7:460–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bitsakos C, Kerner J, Fisher I, Amis AA (2005) The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur. J Biomech 38:133–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Crowninshield RD, Pedersen DR, Brand RA, Johnston RC (1983) Analytical support for acetabular component metal backing. Hip 1983:207–215

    Google Scholar 

  37. Friedman RJ, Black J, Galante JO, Jacobs JJ, Skinner HB (1994) Current concepts in orthopaedic biomaterials and implant fixation. Instr Course Lect 43:233–255

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Morshed S, Bozic KJ, Ries MD, Malchau H, Colford JM (2007) Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement—a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop 78:315–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wroblewski BM (1982) Fractured stem in total hip replacement. A clinical review of 120 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 53:279–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pellicci PM, Wilson PD, Sledge CB, Salvati EA, Ranawat CS, Poss R (1982) Revision total hip-arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat R 170:34–41

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wirtz DC, Schiffers N, Pandorf T, Radermacher K, Weichert D, Forst R (2000) Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech 33:1325–1330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peng L, Bai J, Zeng XL, Zhou YX (2006) Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys 28:227–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Scientific Research Projects Unit of Kocaeli University under project no. 2015/098 and 2015/074HD. The corresponding author thanks The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) 2211-C Scholarship program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Kocaeli University, Umuttepe Campus, 41380, Kocaeli, Turkey

    Talip Çelik, İbrahim Mutlu & Yasin Kişioğlu

  2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duzce University, Konuralp Campus, 81620, Duzce, Turkey

    Arif Özkan

Authors
  1. Talip Çelik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. İbrahim Mutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arif Özkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasin Kişioğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Talip Çelik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Ethical approval

Ethics appproval is not required for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çelik, T., Mutlu, İ., Özkan, A. et al. The effect of cement on hip stem fixation: a biomechanical study. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 40, 349–357 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0539-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-017-0539-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation