Literature DB >> 17544555

Investigation into the effect of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis.

I A J Radcliffe1, M Taylor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Femoral head resurfacing is a popular procedure for younger active hip replacement patients. Whilst the current generation of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasties appear to have cured the osteolysis problems that plagued earlier resurfacing implants, fracture of the femoral head and aseptic loosening are still factors of concern in its survivorship. Several studies have shown a tendency towards failure in resurfaced femurs where the implant has been set at a varus angle. This work aims to investigate the influence of varus-valgus orientation on load transfer within the resurfaced proximal femur.
METHODS: This study uses Computer Tomography based finite element analysis to determine the effect of implant orientation on load transfer in the proximal femur with respect to the intact femur. A group of 16 femurs were studied to take into account inter-patient variation; four models were produced for each femur, one of the intact femur, one resurfaced with the implant set inline with the femoral neck and one each representing varus and valgus implant alignment.
FINDINGS: Results showed the valgus aligned resurfaced femur to produce strain patterns more akin to the intact femur. As the implant's angle to the femoral shaft increases from varus to valgus the strains in the superior femoral neck are reduced while those in the inferior neck are increased.
INTERPRETATION: The study concluded that valgus alignment of the resurfacing arthroplasty is preferential to varus alignment; as it induces a more physiological strain pattern and reduces the risk of femoral neck fracture. These findings are in line with clinical experience, which has shown an increase of failure with varus implanted prostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17544555     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  10 in total

1.  [Imageless computer navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty].

Authors:  Christoph Schnurr; Jochen Nessler; Jürgen Koebke; Joern William Michael; Peer Eysel; Dietmar Pierre König
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 1.154

2.  Imageless navigation of hip resurfacing arthroplasty increases the implant accuracy.

Authors:  C Schnurr; J W P Michael; P Eysel; D P König
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-12-22       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  [Reasons for failure of hip resurfacing implants. A failure analysis based on 250 revision specimens].

Authors:  M M Morlock; N Bishop; F Stahmer; J Zustin; G Sauter; M Hahn; M Krause; W Rüther; M Amling
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists.

Authors:  Ryan M Nunley; Jinjun Zhu; Peter J Brooks; C Anderson Engh; Stephen J Raterman; John S Rogerson; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Are component positioning and prosthesis size associated with hip resurfacing failure?

Authors:  David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Aaron J Johnson; Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-02       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years.

Authors:  Rachelle Morgenstern; Thomas Alastair Denova; Renee Ren; Edwin P Su
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-12-24

7.  Peri-prosthetic bone remodeling of hydroxyapatite-coated compaction short stem was not affected by stem alignment.

Authors:  Shinya Hayashi; Yuichi Kuroda; Naoki Nakano; Tomoyuki Matsumoto; Tomoyuki Kamenaga; Toshihisa Maeda; Takahiro Niikura; Ryosuke Kuroda
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Hip resurfacing: expectations and limitations.

Authors:  K De Smet; A Calistri
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  The effects of necrotic lesion size and orientation of the femoral component on stress alterations in the proximal femur in hip resurfacing - a finite element simulation.

Authors:  Ching-Lung Tai; Yung-Chou Chen; Pang-Hsin Hsieh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  ELIGIBILITY FOR THE HIP-RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY PROCEDURE: AN EVALUATION ON 592 HIPS.

Authors:  Roberto Dantas Queiroz; Rafael Salomon Silva Faria; David Marcelo Duarte; Marcelo Itiro Takano; Mauricio Morita Sugiyama
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2015-12-08
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.