Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ten different hip resurfacing systems: biomechanical analysis of design and material properties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study gives an overview of the main macro- and microstructural differences of ten commercially available total hip resurfacing implants. The heads and cups of resurfacing hip implants from ten different manufacturers were analysed. The components were measured in a coordinate measuring machine. The microstructure of the heads and cups was inspected by scanning electron microscopy. The mean radial clearance was 84.86 μm (range: 49.47–120.93 μm). The implants were classified into three groups (low, medium and high clearance). All implants showed a deviation of roundness of less than 10 μm. It was shown that all implants differ from each other and a final conclusion about the ideal design and material combination cannot be given based on biomechanical data. Widespread use of specific designs can only be recommended if clinical long-term follow-up studies are performed and analysed for each design.

Résumé

Le but de ce travail est d’évaluer les différences observées de 10 implants différents de resurfaçage de la hanche. Matériel et méthode: les têtes et les cupules de différents fabricants ont été analysées. Les différents composants ont été mesurés dans une machine particulière. La micro-structure des têtes et des cupules a été également analysée par microscopie électronique. Résultats: la clearance radiale moyenne a été de 84,86 μm (de 49,47 μm à 120,93 μm). Les implants ont été classés en trois groupes (basse, moyenne et haute clearance). Tous les implants montrent un écart de sphéricité de 10 μm. En conclusion: il est clair que tous les implants diffèrent l’un de l’autre et que le design idéal se situe entre les différentes combinaisons d’implants et ne peuvent être basés sur les données biomécaniques. Une diffusion des designs les plus répandus peut seulement être recommandée après un suivi à long terme analysé pour chaque type d’implant.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ (2007) Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:159–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA (2004) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:28–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amstutz HC, Dorey F, O’Carroll PF (1986) THARIES resurfacing arthroplasty. Evolution and long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 213:92–114

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Orthopaedic Association (2006) National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report, pp 57–87

  5. Chan FW, Bobyn JD, Medley JB, Krygier JJ, Tanzer M (1999) Wear and lubrication of metal-on-metal hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:10–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Clarke IC, Donaldson T, Bowsher JG, Nasser S, Takahashi T (2005) Current concepts of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Orthop Clin North Am 36:143–162, viii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:177–184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH (2004) A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part I: the role of materials. J Arthroplasty 19(8 Suppl 3):118–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH (2004) A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part II: design. J Arthroplasty 19(8 Suppl 3):124–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, Ingham E, Stone MH, Farrar R, Fisher J (2001) Quantitative analysis of wear and wear debris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng 11:143–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ (2007) The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1431–1438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin ZM, Meakins S, Morlock MM, Parsons P, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac G (2006) Deformation of press-fitted metallic resurfacing cups. Part 1: experimental simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 220:299–309

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mai MT, Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ, Campbell PA, Amstutz HC (1996) The contribution of frictional torque to loosening at the cement-bone interface in Tharies hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78:505–511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smith SL, Dowson D, Goldsmith AAJ (2001) The effect of diametral clearances, motion and loading cycles upon lubrication of metal-on-metal hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng [C] 215:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  15. Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS (2008) The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: AN INDEPENDENT SERIES. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:436–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wagner H (1978) Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:102–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Biomechanics and Implant Research, Department of Orthopaedics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Christian Heisel, Jennifer A. Kleinhans & Jan Philippe Kretzer

  2. St. Marienkrankenhaus, Ludwigshafen, Germany

    Michael Menge

  3. Stiftung Orthopädische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200 a, 69118, Heidelberg, Germany

    Christian Heisel

Authors
  1. Christian Heisel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer A. Kleinhans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Menge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Philippe Kretzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Heisel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heisel, C., Kleinhans, J.A., Menge, M. et al. Ten different hip resurfacing systems: biomechanical analysis of design and material properties. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 939–943 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0607-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0607-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation