Introduction

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the hip joint and hip disorders that may lead to total replacement of the joint. The internal morphology of the proximal femur, which can be categorised into one of three types, is of primary importance as it will affect the type of implant most suitable for the treatment. Osteoarthritis is one of the most common reasons for hip replacement where in certain cases can severely limit patient mobility and reduce quality of life. Implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be categorised into one of two types, cemented and cementless. Whilst cemented has been regarded as the gold standard, the cementless coutnerpart is gaining popularity. However, the issue of primary stability has to be addressed and tackled if the cementless approach was to be widely accepted. Finite element method will be used to analyse the stability of the cementless implants for hip arthroplasty.

Keywords

Hip joint Hip disorders Arthroplasty Primary stability Finite element method 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Dorr LD, Faugere M-C, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH (1993) Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone 14(3):231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, Yew DT, Granberry WM, Tullos HS (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:148–165Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macdonald DA (1998) Mini symposium: total hip replacement—(i) Risks versus rewards of total hip replacement. Curr Orthopaed 12(4):229–231MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer TW, Schils J (1999) The pathology of total joint arthroplasty—II. Mech Implant Fail Skeletal Radiol 28(9):483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emery D, Britton A, Clarke H, Grover M (1997) The stanmore total hip arthroplasty: A 15- to 20-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 12(7):728–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Warrak AO, Olmstead ML, von Rechenberg B, Auer JA (2001) A review of aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty. Vet Comp Orthopaed 14(3):115–124Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Gruen T (1997) Functional results in total hip replacement in patients 65 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 336:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haber D, Goodman SB (1998) Total hip arthroplasty in juvenile chronic arthritis: a consecutive series. J Arthroplasty 13(3):259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris WH (1997) Options for primary femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. Cemented stems for all. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stauffer RN (1982) 10-year follow-up-study of total hip-replacement—with particular reference to roentgenographic loosening of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(7):983–990Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutherland CJ, Wilde AH, Borden LS, Marks KE (1982) A 10-year follow-up of 100 consecutive Muller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(7):970–982Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rasquinha VJ, Dua V, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2003) Fifteen-year survivorship of a collarless, cemented, normalized femoral stem in primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a modified third-generation cement technique. J Arthroplasty 18(7 Suppl 1):86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oonishi H (1991) The bone-biomaterial interface. Interfacial reactions to bioactive and non-bioactive bone cements. University of Toronto Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monti L, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M (2001) Interface biomechanics of the Anca dual fit hip stem: an in vitro experimental study. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 215(6):555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duffy GP, Muratoglu OK, Biggs SA, Larson SL, Lozynsky AJ, Harris WH (2001) A critical assessment of proximal macrotexturing on cemented femoral components. J Arthroplasty 16(8 Suppl 1):42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whiteside LA, White SE, Engh CA, Head W (1993) Mechanical evaluation of cadaver retrieval specimens of cementless bone-ingrown total hip arthroplasty femoral components. J Arthroplasty 8(2):147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim YH, Oh SH, Kim JS (2003) Primary total hip arthroplasty with a second-generation cementless total hip prosthesis in patients younger than fifty years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A (1):109–114Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (1998) A critical look at cementless stems. Taper designs and when to use alternatives. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mulliken BD, Nayak N, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Bullas R (1996) Early radiographic results comparing cemented and cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11(1):24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zimmerma S, Hawkes WG, Hudson JI, Magaziner J, Hebel JR, Towheed T, Gardner J, Provenzano G, Kenzora JE (2002) Outcomes of surgical management of total HIP replacement in patients aged 65 years and older: Cemented versus cementless femoral components and lateral or anterolateral versus posterior anatomical approach. J Orthop Res 20(2):182–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nourbash PS, Paprosky WG (1998) Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boss JH, Shajrawi I, Soudry M, Mendes DG (1990) Histological features of the interface membrane of failed isoelastic cementless prostheses. Int Orthop 14(4):399–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69(1):45–55Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cruz-Pardos A, Garcia-Cimbrelo E (2001) The Harris-Galante total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 16(5):586–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barrack RL (1998) The adult hip. Pre-operative planning, 1st edn. Lippincott-Raven, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Healy WL (2002) Hip implant selection for total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 405:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reitman RD, Emerson R, Higgins L, Head W (2003) Thirteen year results of total hip arthroplasty using a tapered titanium femoral component inserted without cement in patients with type C bone. J Arthroplasty 18:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Horikoshi M, Macaulay W, Booth RE, Crossett LS, Rubash HE (1994) Comparison of interface membranes obtained from failed cemented and cementless hip and knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 309:69–87Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adam F, Hammer DS, Pfautsch S, Westermann K (2002) Early failure of a press-fit carbon fiber hip prosthesis with a smooth surface. J Arthroplasty 17(2):217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chan YK, Chiu KY, Yip DK, Ng TP, Tang WM (2003) Full weight bearing after non-cemented total hip replacement is compatible with satisfactory results. Int Orthop 27(2):94–97Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Woolson ST, Adler NS (2002) The effect of partial or full weight bearing ambulation after cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(7):820–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kienapfel H, Sprey C, Wilke A, Griss P (1999) Implant fixation by bone ingrowth. J Arthroplasty 14(3):355–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Burke DW, O’Connor DO, Zalenski EB, Jasty M, Harris WH (1991) Micromotion of cemented and uncemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73(1):33–37MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schneider E, Kinast C, Eulenberger J, Wyder D, Eskilsson G, Perren SM (1989) A comparative study of the initial stability of cementless hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:200–209Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schneider E, Eulenberger J, Steiner W, Wyder D, Friedman RJ, Perren SM (1989) Experimental method for the in vitro testing of the initial stability of cementless hip prostheses. J Biomech 22(6–7):735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Duparc J, Massin P (1992) Results of 203 total hip replacements using a smooth, cementless femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74(2):251–256Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dickob M, Martini T (1996) The cementless PM hip arthroplasty. Four-to-seven-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):195–199Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Menon DK, McCreath SW (1999) 5- to 8-Year results of the freeman press-fit hip arthroplasty without HA coating: a clinicoradiologic study. J Arthroplasty 14(5):581–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Phillips TW, Messieh SS (1988) Cementless hip replacement for arthritis. Problems with a smooth surface moore stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70(5):750–755Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dorr LD, Lewonowski K, Lucero M, Harris M, Wan Z (1997) Failure mechanisms of anatomic porous replacement I cementless total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 334:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kobayashi A, Donnelly WJ, Scott G, Freeman MA (1997) Early radiological observations may predict the long-term survival of femoral hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79(4):583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vresilovic EJ, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (1994) Radiographic assessment of cementless femoral components: correlation with intraoperative mechanical stability. J Arthroplasty 9(2):137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Khalily C, Whiteside LA (1998) Predictive value of early radiographic findings in cementless total hip arthroplasty femoral components: an 8- to 12-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 13(7):768–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kitamura S, Hasegawa Y, Iwasada S, Yamauchi K-i, Kawamoto K, Kanamono T, Iwata H (1999) Catastrophic failure of cementless total hip arthroplasty using a femoral component without surface coating. J Arthroplasty 14(8):918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lautiainen IA, Joukainen J, Makela EA (1994) Clinical and roentgenographic results of cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9(6):653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Petersilge WJ, D’Lima DD, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr (1997) Prospective study of 100 consecutive Harris-Galante porous total hip arthroplasties. 4- to 8-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 12(2):185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mont MA, Hungerford DS (1997) Proximally coated ingrowth prostheses. A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chen CH, Shih CH, Lin CC, Cheng CK (1998) Cementless Roy-Camille femoral component. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 118(1–2):85–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kusakabe H, Sakamaki T, Nihei K, Oyama Y, Yanagimoto S, Ichimiya M, Kimura J, Toyama Y (2004) Osseointegration of a hydroxyapatite-coated multilayered mesh stem. Biomaterials 25(15):2957–2969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    von Knoch M, Engh CA, Sychterz CJ, Engh CA, Willert H-G (2000) Migration of polyethylene wear debris in one type of uncemented femoral component with circumferential porous coating: an autopsy study of 5 femurs. J Arthroplasty 15(1):72–78Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z (1996) Comparative results of a distal modular sleeve, circumferential coating, and stiffness relief using the anatomic porous replacement II. J Arthroplasty 11(4):419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jacobsen S, Jensen FK, Poulsen K, Sturup J, Retpen JB (2003) Good performance of a titanium femoral component in cementless hip arthroplasty in younger patients: 97 arthroplasties followed for 5–11 years. Acta Orthop Scand 74(4):375–379Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yoshinari M, Matsuzaka K, Inoue T, Oda Y, Shimono M (2003) Effects of multigrooved surfaces on fibroblast behavior. J Biomed Mater Res A 65(3):359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Matsuzaka K, Yoshinari M, Shimono M, Inoue T (2004) Effects of multigrooved surfaces on osteoblast-like cells in vitro: scanning electron microscopic observation and mRNA expression of osteopontin and osteocalcin. J Biomed Mater Res A 68A(2):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Matsuzaka K, Walboomers XF, Yoshinari M, Inoue T, Jansen JA (2003) The attachment and growth behavior of osteoblast-like cells on microtextured surfaces. Biomaterials 24(16):2711–2719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chang CK, Wu JS, Mao DL, Ding CX (2001) Mechanical and histological evaluations of hydroxyapatite-coated and noncoated Ti6Al4 V implants in tibia bone. J Biomed Mater Res 56(1):17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eckardt A, Aberman HM, Cantwell HD, Heine J (2003) Biological fixation of hydroxyapatite-coated versus grit-blasted titanium hip stems: a canine study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123(1):28–35Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Mouzin O, Soballe K, Bechtold JE (2001) Loading improves anchorage of hydroxyapatite implants more than titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res 58(1):61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ricci JL, Spivak JM, Blumenthal NC, Alexander H (1991) The bone-biomaterial interface. Modulation of bone ingrowth by surface chemistry and roughness. University of Toronto Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Niki M, Ito G, Matsuda T, Ogino M (1991) The bone-biomaterial interface. Comparative push-out data of bioactive and non-bioactive materials of similar rugosity. University of Toronto Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Uchida A, Nade SM, McCartney ER, Ching W (1984) The use of ceramics for bone replacement. A comparative study of three different porous ceramics. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66(2):269–275Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yamamuro T, Takagi H (1991) The bone-biomaterial interface bone bonding behaviour of biomaterials with different surface characteristics under load-bearing conditions. University of Toronto Press, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Jinno T, Kirk SK, Morita S, Goldberg VM (2004) Effects of calcium ion implantation on osseointegration of surface-blasted titanium alloy femoral implants in a canine total hip arthroplasty model. J Arthroplasty 19(1):102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gong W, Abdelouas A, Lutze W (2001) Porous bioactive glass and glass–ceramics made by reaction sintering under pressure. J Biomed Mater Res 54(3):320–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kato H, Neo M, Tamura J, Nakamura T (2001) Bone bonding in bioactive glass ceramics combined with a new synthesized agent TAK-778. J Biomed Mater Res 57(2):291–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kato H, Nishiguchi S, Furukawa T, Neo M, Kawanabe K, Saito K, Nakamura T (2001) Bone bonding in sintered hydroxyapatite combined with a new synthesized agent, TAK-778. J Biomed Mater Res 54(4):619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Feinberg JR (1998) Hydroxyapatite in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical results and critical issues. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:200–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Røkkum M, Reigstad A (1999) Total hip replacement with an entirely hydroxyapatite-coated prosthesis: 5 years’ follow-up of 94 consecutive hips. J Arthroplasty 14(6):689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ciccotti MG, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ, Moriarty L (1994) Clinical and roentgenographic evaluation of hydroxyapatite-augmented and nonaugmented porous total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 9(6):631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rothman RH, Hozack WJ, Ranawat A, Moriarty L (1996) Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. A matched-pair analysis of coated and uncoated implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(3):319–324Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Johnston DW, Davies DM, Beaupre LA, Lavoie G (2001) Standard anatomical medullary locking (AML) versus tricalcium phosphate-coated AML femoral prostheses. Can J Surg 44(6):421–427Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Oh SH, Kim JM (2003) Comparison of porous-coated titanium femoral stems with and without hydroxyapatite coating. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A (9):1682–1688Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yee AJ, Kreder HK, Bookman I, Davey JR (1999) A randomized trial of hydroxyapatite coated prostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 366:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kang JS, Dorr LD, Wan Z (2000) The effect of diaphyseal biologic fixation on clinical results and fixation of the APR-II stem. J Arthroplasty 15(6):730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hayashi K, Mashima T, Uenoyama K (1999) The effect of hydroxyapatite coating on bony ingrowth into grooved titanium implants. Biomaterials 20(2):111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH (1998) Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 43(2):192–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Maloney WJ, Jasty M, Burke DW, O’Connor DO, Zalenski EB, Bragdon C, Harris WH (1989) Biomechanical and histologic investigation of cemented total hip arthroplasties. A study of autopsy-retrieved femurs after in vivo cycling. Clin Orthop Relat Res 249:129–140Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Engh CA, O’Connor D, Jasty M, McGovern TF, Bobyn JD, Harris WH (1992) Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285:13–29Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bernakiewicz M, Viceconti M, Toni A (2001) Investigation of the influence of periprosthetic fibrous tissue on the primary stability of uncemented hip prosthesis. Comput Meth Biomech Biomed Eng 3:21–26Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Viceconti M, Monti L, Muccini R, Bernakiewicz M, Toni A (2001) Even a thin layer of soft tissue may compromise the primary stability of cementless hip stems. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 16(9):765–775Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ (1993) Quantitative analysis of bone reactions to relative motions at implant-bone interfaces. J Biomech 26(11):1271–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    O’Toole Iii RV, Jaramaz B, DiGioia Iii AM, Visnic CD, Reid RH (1995) Biomechanics for preoperative planning and surgical simulations in orthopaedics. Comput Biol Med 25(2):183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B (1998) Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    McNamara BP, Cristofolini L, Toni A, Taylor D (1997) Relationship between bone-prosthesis bonding and load transfer in total hip reconstruction. J Biomech 30(6):621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Stolk J, Maher SA, Verdonschot N, Prendergast PJ, Huiskes R (2003) Can finite element models detect clinically inferior cemented hip implants? Clin Orthop Relat Res 409:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Tanner KE, Yettram AL, Loeffler M, Goodier WD, Freeman MAR, Bonfield W (1995) Is stem length important in uncemented endoprostheses? Med Eng Phys 17(4):291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Prendergast PJ (1997) Finite element models in tissue mechanics and orthopaedic implant design. Clin Biomech 12(6):343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomechanics and Biomedical Materials, Faculty of Health Science and Biomedical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohorMalaysia

Personalised recommendations