Literature DB >> 18548228

[Biomechanical aspects of the implant fixation and kinematics of hip resurfacing systems].

R Bader1, D Klüss, L Gerdesmeyer, E Steinhauser.   

Abstract

Hip resurfacing is undergoing a resurgence in orthopaedic surgery with an increasing number of implantations. The objective of this article is to present the biomechanical basics of implant anchorage as well as the kinematics of hip resurfacing implants.Today, fixation of the femoral component onto the prepared femoral head is mainly done using bone cement. Depending on the implant design, the bone structures beneath the femoral component can be exposed to stress shielding, followed by degradation of the bone density and subsequent initiation of implant loosening. However, the trabecular bone has the ability to adapt itself to the fixation peg, to additional cement pegs, and to the elastic properties of the femoral component as well. The acetabular component is mainly inserted into the bone stock without using cement. Provided that large prosthetic heads will be applied, thin-walled acetabular cups are crucial for bone-saving preparation of the acetabular bone stock. Nearly all hip resurfacing systems are currently based on metal-on-metal wear-bearing couples. The acetabular components are mainly designed as monoblock implants, which can make subsequent revision difficult. Kinematic analyses show a significantly lower range of motion of hip resurfacing implants compared with modern standard (stemmed) total hip replacement systems. This difference originates from the small ratio of the resurfaced femoral head diameter and the relatively thick neck of the femur. Impingement of the femur neck onto the rim of the acetabular component can result in subluxation, deformation of the bearing surfaces, femoral neck fracture, and impairment of the bony anchorage of the hip resurfacing implants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18548228     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-008-1285-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  34 in total

1.  Experimental and computational simulation of total hip arthroplasty dislocation.

Authors:  C F Scifert; P C Noble; T D Brown; R L Bartz; N Kadakia; N Sugano; R C Johnston; D R Pedersen; J J Callaghan
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.472

2.  Kinematics, kinetics, and finite element analysis of commonplace maneuvers at risk for total hip dislocation.

Authors:  Mark E Nadzadi; Douglas R Pedersen; H John Yack; John J Callaghan; Thomas D Brown
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.712

Review 3.  Vascularity of the arthritic femoral head and hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Pat Campbell; Zhen Lu; Katharina Leunig-Ganz; Martin Beck; Michael Leunig; Reinhold Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: response to physiological loads.

Authors:  J P Little; F Taddei; M Viceconti; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-01-25       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  Thermal effects of cement mantle thickness for hip resurfacing.

Authors:  J Paige Little; Hans A Gray; David W Murray; David J Beard; Harinderjit Singh Gill
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Patricia A Campbell; Frederick J Dorey
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter.

Authors:  Daniel Kluess; Carmen Zietz; Tobias Lindner; Wolfram Mittelmeier; Klaus-Peter Schmitz; Rainer Bader
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Resurfacing hip prostheses revisited: failure analysis during a 16-year follow-up.

Authors:  A-W H B Duijsens; S Keizer; T Vliet-Vlieland; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2005-04-26       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Use of metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Thorsten M Seyler; David R Marker; German A Marulanda; Ronald E Delanois
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 10.  Why total hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  2 in total

1.  [Durom™ hip resurfacing. Short- to midterm clinical and radiological outcome].

Authors:  J Goronzy; M Stiehler; S Kirschner; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Approach to painful hip resurfacing].

Authors:  L Gerdesmeyer; H Gollwitzer; P Diehl; M Fuerst; M Schmitt-Sody
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.087

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.