Implant material properties and their role in micromotion and failure in total hip arthroplasty

  • Bradley ElliottEmail author
  • Tarun Goswami


One of the most vital criteria for hip implant longevity is bony ingrowth that would anchor the implant to the bone. However, motion between the implant and surrounding bone (called micromotion) can hamper this, eventually leading to pain, loss of motion, damage to the bone, and eventual revision of the surgery. The objective of this research was to determine how mechanical properties; namely Young’s modulus, affects micromotion and failure in the surrounding bone. Mathematical models were used, along with finite element analysis, to determine if elastic modulus played a role in both micromotion and bone failure. However, by increasing the modulus of the implant, the bone becomes susceptible to stress shielding. Therefore, it is important to optimize implants for both stress shielding and micromotion.


Biomechanics Finite element analysis (FEA) Total hip arthroplasty (THA) Young’s modulus 


  1. Akkus, O., Rimnac, C.M.: Cortical bone tissue resists fatigue fracture by deceleration and arrest of microcracks. J. Biomech. 34, 757–764 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Your orthopedic connection. “Total hip replacement”. (2009). Accessed 20 May 2011
  3. Bergmann, G., Graichen, F., Rohlmann, A.: Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J. Biomech. 26, 969–990 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. Bragdon, C.R., Burke, D., Lowenstein, J.D.: Differences in stiffness of the interface between a cementless porous implant and cancellous bone in vivo in dogs due to varying amounts of implant motion. J. Arthroplast. 11, 945–951 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Brown, C.U., Norman, T.L., Kish, V.L. III: Time-dependent circumferential deformation of cortical bone upon internal radial loading. J. Biomech. 124, 456–461 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. Cárdenas-García, J.R.: The indentation test revisited: obtaining Poisson’s ratio. In: SEM X International Congress and Exposition on Experimental and Applied Mechanics. Costa Mesa, California (2004)Google Scholar
  7. Carter, D.R., Caler, W.E.: Uniaxial fatigue of human cortical bone. The influence of tissue physical characteristics. J. Biomech. 14, 461–470 (1981)Google Scholar
  8. Carter, D., Hayes, W.C., Schurman, D.J.: Fatigue life of compact bone—II. Effects of microstructure and density. J. Biomech. 9, 211–218 (1976)Google Scholar
  9. Fazzalari, N.L., Forwood, M.R., Smith, K.: Assessment of cancellous bone quality in severe osteoarthrosis: bone mineral density, mechanics, and microdamage. Bone 22, 381–388 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. Fischer-Cripps, A.C.: The Hertzian contact surface. J. Mater. Sci. 34, 129–137 (1999)Google Scholar
  11. Fischer-Cripps, A.C.: Introduction to Contact Mechanics. Springer-Verlag, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleck, C., Eifler, D.: Deformation behavior and damage accumulation of cortical bone specimens from the equine tibia under cyclic loading. J. Biomech. 36, 179–189 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Fritsch, A., Dormieux, L., Sanahuja, J.: Mechanical behavior of hydroxyapatite biomaterials: an experimentally validated micromechanical model for elasticity and strength. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 88A, 149–161 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. Geesink, R.G., Hoefnagels, N.H.: Six-year results of hydroxyapatite-coated total hip replacement. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 77B, 534–546 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. Guiberteau, F., Padture, N.P., Cai, H.: A simple cyclic Hertzian test for measuring damage accumulation in polycrystalline ceramics. Philos. Mag. A 68, 1003–1016 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. Guo, X.-D.E., McMahon, T.A., Keaveny, T.M.: Finite element modeling of damage accumulation in trabecular bone under cyclic loading. J. Biomech. 27, 145–155 (1994)Google Scholar
  17. Huiskes, R.P., Weinans, H., Van Rietbergen.: The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. In: 19th Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. Anaheim, California (1991)Google Scholar
  18. Jasty, M., Bragdon, C., Burke, D., O’Connor, D., Lowenstein, J., Harris, W.H.: In vivo skeletal response to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 79, 707–714 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. Johansson, J.E., McBroom, R., Barrington, T.W.: Fracture of the ipsilateral femur in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 63, 1435–1442 (1981)Google Scholar
  20. Kang, Y.K., Park, H.C., Youm, Y.: Three dimensional shape reconstruction and finite element analysis of femur before and after the cementless type of total hip replacement. J. Biomed. Eng. 15, 497–504 (1993)Google Scholar
  21. Silva, V.V., Lameiras, F.S., Domingues, R.Z.: Microstructural and mechanical study of zirconia–hydroxyapatite (ZH) composite ceramics for biomedical applications. Compos. Sci. Technol. 61, 301–310 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. Tane, M., Akita, S., Nakano, T., Hagihara, K., Umakoshi, Y., Niinomi, M., et al.: Peculiar elastic behavior of Ti-Nb-Ta-Zr single crystals. Acta Mater. 56, 2856–2863 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. Wong, A., New, A., Isaacs, G., Taylor, M.: Effect of bone material properties on the initial stability of a cementless hip stem: a finite element study. Eng. Med. 219, 266–275 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical, Industrial, and Human Factors EngineeringWright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations