Mechanical properties of morcellised bone graft with the addition of hydroxyapatite

  • I. McNamara
  • J. Howard
  • A. Rayment
  • R. Schalk
  • R. Brooks
  • S. Best
  • N. Rushton
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Mixtures of morcellised bone graft (MBG) and hydroxyapatite (HA) are frequently used in revision arthroplasty surgery. However, the changes in the mechanical properties from adding HA to MBG are unknown. This study used a uniaxial compression test to replicate impaction bone grafting and subsequent early postoperative weightbearing to investigate the effect of adding different proportion of HA to MBG. To achieve this aim, human MBG was subjected to increasing impaction forces and the apparent stiffness and creep for each stress level determined. Subsequently, increasing proportions porous and non porous HA were added to the MBG. The major findings were that the apparent stiffness for MBG increased and the associated creep decreased both with the application of increasing stress and with the addition of increasing proportions of HA. In conclusion, greater proportions of HA in the graft mixture improved the mechanical response compared with MBG impacted under the same force. This improvement replicated the properties of pure MBG under high axial stress. This study indicates that graft mixtures of MBG and HA can be tailormade for patients. The need for less impaction force in MBG:HA mixtures to obtain the same properties as pure MBG may decrease the risk of intraoperative fracture.

Keywords

Creep Rate Impaction Force Bone Stock Bone Graft Substitute Impaction Grafting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Phillips AT, Pankaj, Brown DT, Oram TZ, Howie CR, Usmani AS. The elastic properties of morsellised cortico-cancellous bone graft are dependent on its prior loading. J Biomech. 2006;39(8):1517–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ireland L, Spelman D. Bacterial contamination of tissue allografts—experiences of the donor tissue bank of Victoria. Cell Tissue Bank. 2005;6(3):181–9. doi: 10.1007/s10561-005-7365-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simonds RJ, Holmberg SD, Hurwitz RL, Coleman TR, Bottenfield S, Conley LJ, et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 from a seronegative organ and tissue donor. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(11):726–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schreurs BW, Slooff TJ, Buma P, Gardeniers JW, Huiskes R. Acetabular reconstruction with impacted morsellised cancellous bone graft and cement. A 10- to 15-year follow-up of 60 revision arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(3):391–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schreurs BW, Zengerink M, Welten ML, van Kampen A, Slooff TJ. Bone impaction grafting and a cemented cup after acetabular fracture at 3–18 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;437:145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keaveny TM, Wachtel EF, Kopperdahl DL. Mechanical behavior of human trabecular bone after overloading. J Orthop Res. 1999;17(3):346–53. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100170308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Voor MJ, Nawab A, Malkani AL, Ullrich CR. Mechanical properties of compacted morselized cancellous bone graft using one-dimensional consolidation testing. J Biomech. 2000;33(12):1683–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blom AW, Cunningham JL, Hughes G, Lawes TJ, Smith N, Blunn G, et al. The compatibility of ceramic bone graft substitutes as allograft extenders for use in impaction grafting of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(3):421–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolder SB, Verdonschot N, Schreurs BW. Technical factors affecting cup stability in bone impaction grafting. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2007;221(1):81–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimm B, Miles AW, Turner IG. Optimizing a hydroxyapatite/tricalcium–phosphate ceramic as a bone graft extender for impaction grafting. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12(10–12):929–34. doi: 381147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arts JJ, Gardeniers JW, Welten ML, Verdonschot N, Schreurs BW, Buma P. No negative effects of bone impaction grafting with bone and ceramic mixtures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Voor MJ, White JE, Grieshaber JE, Malkani AL, Ullrich CR. Impacted morselized cancellous bone: mechanical effects of defatting and augmentation with fine hydroxyapatite particles. J Biomech. 2004;37(8):1233–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2003.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schreurs BW, Gardeniers JW, Slooff TJ. Acetabular reconstruction with bone impaction grafting: 20 years of experience. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:221–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aoki H, Akao MaKK. Mechanical properties of sintered hydroxyapatite for prosthetic applications. J Mater Sci. 1981;16:809–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LeGeros. RZLaJP. Dense hydroxyapatite. In: An introduction to bioceramics. 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    White AA, Kinloch IA, Windle AH, Best SM. Optimization of the sintering atmosphere for high-density hydroxyapatite-carbon nanotube composites. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7(Suppl 5):S529–39. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0117.focus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tolouei RRS, Tan C, Amiriyan M, Teng W. Sintering effects on the densification of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. Int J Automot Mech Eng (IJAME). 2011;3:249–55.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eggli PS, Muller W, Schenk RK. Porous hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate cylinders with two different pore size ranges implanted in the cancellous bone of rabbits. A comparative histomorphometric and histologic study of bony ingrowth and implant substitution. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:127–38.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hing KA, Annaz B, Saeed S, Revell PA, Buckland T. Microporosity enhances bioactivity of synthetic bone graft substitutes. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2005;16(5):467–75. doi: 10.1007/s10856-005-6988-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hing KA, Best SM, Tanner KE, Bonfield W, Revell PA. Mediation of bone ingrowth in porous hydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;68(1):187–200. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.10050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hing KA, Wilson LF, Buckland T. Comparative performance of three ceramic bone graft substitutes. Spine J. 2007;7(4):475–90. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.07.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sorensen J, Ullmark G, Langstrom B, Nilsson O. Rapid bone and blood flow formation in impacted morselized allografts: positron emission tomography (PET) studies on allografts in 5 femoral component revisions of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):633–43. doi: 10.1080/00016470310018126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ullmark G, Nilsson O. Impacted corticocancellous allografts: recoil and strength. J Arthroplast. 1999;14(8):1019–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalstra M, Huiskes R. Load transfer across the pelvic bone. J Biomech. 1995;28(6):715–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gie GA, Linder L, Ling RS, Simon JP, Slooff TJ, Timperley AJ. Contained morselized allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Surgical technique. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24(4):717–25.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech. 2001;34(7):859–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech. 1993;26(8):969–90. doi: 0021-9290(93)90058-M.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. McNamara
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. Howard
    • 2
  • A. Rayment
    • 3
  • R. Schalk
    • 2
  • R. Brooks
    • 2
  • S. Best
    • 3
  • N. Rushton
    • 2
  1. 1.Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS foundation trustNorwichUK
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Research UnitAddenbrooke’s HospitalCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Department of Materials Science and MetallurgyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations