Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 108, Issue 5, pp 300–307 | Cite as

Micromotions in the primary fixation of cementless femoral stem prostheses

  • D. Gebauer
  • H. J. Refior
  • M. Haake
Original Articles


Thirty cementless femoral stems of six different types of hip endoprostheses were impanted in femurs taken at autopsy and underwent static loading and afterwards dynamic loading of 50000 cycles to simulate walking during the early months after implantation. After that, the static load tests were performed again. During both static load series a certain amount of micromotion between stem and implantation bed occurred in the frontal and sagittal planes and also during rotation. The six prostheses exhibited clearly differing results. The influence of dynamic load on the extent of micromotion was small.


Public Health Static Load Sagittal Plane Dynamic Load Load Test 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dienel R-B, Jungnickel J, Holzweissig F, Manitz L, Hellinger J (1984) Mikrobewegungen von zementfixierten Hüftendoprothesen-Schäften in Leichenfemora. Beitr Orthop Traumatol 31:151–158Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faensen M, Rahmanzadeh R, Naseband K (1980) Untersuchungen an einem modifizierten Schaft zur dauerhaften Verankerung von Hüftgelenksprothesen. Biomedizinische Technik 25:160–163Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freeman MAR, Railton GT (1987) Die zementlose Verankerung in der Endoprothetik. Orthopäde 16:206–219Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofmann D, Ecke H, Nietert M, Langhans M (1987) Vergleichende Spannungsanalyse nach Implantation zementfreier Prothesen. Med Welt 38:1375–1379Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morscher E (1987) Erfahrungen, Anforderungen und Entwicklung von zementfreien Hüftendoprothesen. Orthopäde 16:185–169Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C (1986) Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into poroussurfaced implants. Clin Orthop 208:108–133Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Röhrle H, Scholten R, Sollbach W (1982) Kraftmessungen in Knochenstrukturen und Prothesen. Phase II. BMFT-FB T 79–82, Karlsruhe, FachinformationszentrumGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stauffer DC, Strauss M (1976) An estimate of damage on the contact surfaces of a total hip prosthesis due to walking. J Biomech 9:711–721Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walker PS, Schneeweis D, Murphy S, Nelson P (1987) Strains and micromotions of press-fit femoral stem prostheses. J Biomech 20:693–702Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Gebauer
    • 1
  • H. J. Refior
    • 1
  • M. Haake
    • 2
  1. 1.Staatliche Orthopädische KlinikLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchen 90Federal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Labor für Biomechanik und Experimentelle OrthopädieLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchen 90Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations