Advertisement

Biomechanical Advances in Total Hip Replacement

  • Philip C. Noble

Summary

Cemented hip arthroplasty is one of the most successful procedures of modern surgery. However, attempts to extend this procedure to younger and more active individuals using cemented or cementless methods of fixation have met with mixed success. Cementless procedures still have an unacceptable incidence of pain and limp at follow-up. These symptoms appear to be related to the presence of localized areas of instability of the stem/bone interface secondary to inadequate proximal or distal fixation. In addition, an alarming complication of some cementless prostheses is focal osteolysis which appears to arise from a foreign body reaction to particulate debris generated by motion between the implant and bone. Continuing advances in cementless arthroplasty will arise from a systematic approach to implant design leading to more anatomic stems, greater integration of implants and instruments, and increased attention to the impact of surgical technique on implant/bone fit and the stability of cementless fixation.

The results of cemented arthroplasty also continue to improve. Retrospective studies of retrieved implants have shown that the fundamental cause of aseptic loosening and focal osteolysis is fragmentation of the cement mantle. This complication can be minimized through use of implants specifically designed for cemented fixation, centralized within the medullary canal with proximal and distal centralizing devices which guarantee a minimum thickness of bone cement. In terms of the biomechanics of the hip joint itself, hip replacement can be enhanced yet further through greater attention to restorating the anatomic relationship between the femur and the acetabulum. This necessitates the use of femoral components which increased head offset and coordination of the position of the femoral head with the shape of the femoral stem.

In the acetabulum, cementless fixation has been particularly successful in the short term. However, dependable fixation of acetabular cups sometimes necessitates adjunctive the use of bone screws which has led to a small but serious incidence of neurovascular complications. The morbidity of screw fixation within the pelvis may be minimized if bicortical screw purchase is avoided and if screw placement is restricted to areas of thickest available bone.

Solutions are still awaited to many unsolved challenges in total hip replacement. These include increased wear-resistance of the articulating surfaces, a truly biocompatible implant/bone interface and greater retention of cortical bone in the presence of rigid component fixation.

Key words

Hip replacement Biomechanics Femur Acetabulum Anatomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huddleston HD (1988) Femoral lysis after cemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3: 285–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony PP, Gie GA, Howie CR, Ling RSM, Perkins RD (1990) Localised endosteal bone lysis in relation to soundly fixed femoral components of cemented tatal hip replacements: A possible mechanism. J Bone and Joint Surg 72B: 532Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. CORR 249: 129–140Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vives P, de Lestang M, Jarde O, Decoopman M (1987) Interest du contact direct entre la tige femorale et I’os diaphysaire dans les prostheses totales cimentees. Rev Chir Orthop [Suppl] 2: 218–220Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maloney WJ, Jasty M, Harris WH, Galante JO, Callaghan JJ (1990) Endosteal erosion in association with stable uncemented femoral components. JBJS 72A: 1025–1034Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noble PC, Tullos HS, Landon GC (1991) The optimum cement mantle for total hip replacement. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Park Ridge, Illinois (Instructional Course Lectures, vol XL )Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McNiece GM, Amstutz HC (1976) Finite element studies in hip reconstruction. In: Komi PV (ed) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Biomechanics, University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 339–405Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahmed AM, Raab S, Miller JE (1984) Metal cement interface strength in cemented stem fixation. J Orthop Res 2: 105–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huiskes R (1980) Some fundamental aspects of human joint replacements: Analysis of stresses and heat conduction in bone-prosthesis structures. Acta Orthop Scand 185: 109–200Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krause WR, Krug WH, Miller JE (1982) Strength of cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop 163: 290–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crowninshield RD, Tolbert JR (1983) Cement strain measurement surrounding well-fixed femoral component stems. J Biomed Mater Res 17 (5): 819–828PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noble PC, Scheller AD, Tullos HS, Levy RN, Turner RH (1987) Applied design criteria for total hip prosthesis. In: Stillwell T (ed) The art of total hip arthroplasty. Grune and Straton, Orlando, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beckenbaugh RD, Ilstrup DM (1978) Total hip arthroplasty: A review of three hundred and thirty-three cases with long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 60: 306Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ling RSM (1980) Prevention of loosening of total hip components. In: Mosby CV (ed) The hip Proceedings of the Eighth Open Scientific Meeing of the Hip Society. St Louis, pp 292–307Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller J, Johnson JA (1987) Advances in cementing techniques in total hip arthroplasty. In: Stillwell T (ed) The art of total hip arthroplasty. Grune and Straton, Orlando, pp 277–291Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noble PC, Hammerman SM, Alexander JW, Green RB, Marltry JA, Tullos HS (1987) Innovations in cementing techniques in total hip replacement. Scientific Exhibit at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 54th Annual Meeting, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davies JP, Jasty M, O’Connor DO, Burke DW, Harrigan TP, Harris WH (1989) The effect of centrifuging bone cement. JBJS 71B: 39–42Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burke DW, Gates EI, Harris WH (1984) Centrifugation as a method of improving tensile and fatigue properties of acrylic bone cement. JBJS, 66A: 1265–1273Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy RN, Noble PC, Scheller A, Tullos HS, Turner R (1988) Prolonged fixation of cemented total hip replacement. Surgical Rounds for Orthopaedics, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarmiento A, Gruen TA (1985) Radiographic analysis of a low modulus titanium-alloy femoral total hip component. JBJS 67A: 48–56Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Llinas A, Ebramzadeh E, McKellop H, Gogan W, Sarmiento A (1991) Femoral component size and position in cemented total hip prostheses. In: Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 58th Annual Meeting, Anabheim, California, March 7–12Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheller A, Levy RN, Noble PC, Turner R (1989) A comparative analysis of total hip component position and cement technique. In: Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 56th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada; February 9–14Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noble PC, Kamaric E, Alexander JW, Tullos HS (1989) What makes cementless implants work? Scientific Exhibit at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery 56th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NevadaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Granbery ML, Granberry WM, Maltry JA, Tullos, HS (1988) The myth of “press-fit” in the proximal femur. Scientific Exhibit at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 55th Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cook SD, Barrack RL, Thomas KA, Haddad RJ (1988) Quantitative analysis of tissue growth into human porous total hip components. J. Arthroplasty 3: 249–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noble PC (1990) Proximal Femoral Geometry and the design of cementless hip replacements. Orthop Rel Sci 1: 86–92Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, et al. (1988) The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop 235: 148–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Averill RG, Pachtman N, Jaffe WL (1980) A basic dimensional analysis of normal human proximal femora. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp 352–356Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Granberry ML, Noble PC, London GC, Tullos HS (1989) Factors influencing the clinical results of cementless femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty. In: Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 56th Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada; February 9–14Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ericksen MF (1979) Aging changes in the medullary cavity of the proximal femur in American blacks and whites. Am J Phys Anthropol 51: 563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ruff CB, Hayes WC (1982) Subperiosteal expansion and cortical remodeling of the human femur and tibia with aging. Science 217: 945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith RW, Walker RR (1964) Femora expansion in aging woman: Implications for osteoporosis and fractures. Science 145: 156Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Manley MT, Capello WN, Averill RG, Cohen R (1990) Effect of stem design parameters, stem fit, and bone quality on the torsional stability of femoral stems. In: Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 57th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 8–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip C. Noble
    • 1
  1. 1.Orthopedic Research LaboratoryThe Methodist HospitalHoustonUS

Personalised recommendations