Literature DB >> 32600210

Modelling changes in modular taper micromechanics due to surgeon assembly technique in total hip arthroplasty.

Jonathan A Gustafson1, Robin Pourzal1, Brett R Levine1, Joshua J Jacobs1, Hannah J Lundberg1.   

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop a novel computational model for estimating head/stem taper mechanics during different simulated assembly conditions.
METHODS: Finite element models of generic cobalt-chromium (CoCr) heads on a titanium stem taper were developed and driven using dynamic assembly loads collected from clinicians. To verify contact mechanics at the taper interface, comparisons of deformed microgroove characteristics (height and width of microgrooves) were made between model estimates with those measured from five retrieved implants. Additionally, these models were used to assess the role of assembly technique-one-hit versus three-hits-on the taper interlock mechanical behaviour.
RESULTS: The model compared well to deformed microgrooves from the retrieved implants, predicting changes in microgroove height (mean 1.1 μm (0.2 to 1.3)) and width (mean 7.5 μm (1.0 to 18.5)) within the range of measured changes in height (mean 1.4 μm (0.4 to 2.3); p = 0.109) and width (mean 12.0 μm (1.5 to 25.4); p = 0.470). Consistent with benchtop studies, our model found that increasing assembly load magnitude led to increased taper engagement, contact pressure, and permanent deformation of the stem taper microgrooves. Interestingly, our model found assemblies using three hits at low loads (4 kN) led to decreased taper engagement, contact pressures and microgroove deformations throughout the stem taper compared with tapers assembled with one hit at the same magnitude.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest additional assembly hits at low loads lead to inferior taper interlock strength compared with one firm hit, which may be influenced by loading rate or material strain hardening. These unique models can estimate microgroove deformations representative of real contact mechanics seen on retrievals, which will enable us to better understand how both surgeon assembly techniques and implant design affect taper interlock strength. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):33-40.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contact mechanics; Finite element modeling; Microgrooves; Surgeon assembly; Tapers; Total hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32600210      PMCID: PMC7371265          DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1678.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  16 in total

1.  Morse-type tapers: factors that may influence taper strength during total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew T Pennock; Andrew H Schmidt; Craig A Bourgeault
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  A multicenter retrieval study of the taper interfaces of modular hip prostheses.

Authors:  Jay R Goldberg; Jeremy L Gilbert; Joshua J Jacobs; Thomas W Bauer; Wayne Paprosky; Sue Leurgans
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  What Factors Drive Taper Corrosion?

Authors:  Robin Pourzal; Hannah J Lundberg; Deborah J Hall; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Influence of assembly procedure and material combination on the strength of the taper connection at the head-neck junction of modular hip endoprostheses.

Authors:  Annelie Rehmer; Nicholas E Bishop; Michael M Morlock
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  The effects of manufacturing tolerances and assembly force on the volumetric wear at the taper junction in modular total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thom Bitter; Imran Khan; Tim Marriott; Elaine Lovelady; Nico Verdonschot; Dennis Janssen
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 1.763

6.  Friction in femoral prosthesis and photoelastic model cone taper joints.

Authors:  H Fessler; D C Fricker
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.617

7.  A Survey of the Prevalence of and Techniques to Prevent Trunnionosis.

Authors:  Michael Marinier; Tori A Edmiston; Sean Kearns; Charles P Hannon; Brett R Levine
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 1.390

8.  Ten-Year Cross-Sectional Study of Mechanically Assisted Crevice Corrosion in 1352 Consecutive Patients With Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel K Hussey; Brian J McGrory
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-03-18       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Does Surface Topography Play a Role in Taper Damage in Head-neck Modular Junctions?

Authors:  Robin Pourzal; Deborah J Hall; Nguyen Q Ha; Robert M Urban; Brett R Levine; Joshua J Jacobs; Hannah J Lundberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations. The effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling.

Authors:  J L Gilbert; C A Buckley; J J Jacobs
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1993-12
View more
  3 in total

1.  Are Damage Modes Related to Microstructure and Material Loss in Severely Damaged CoCrMo Femoral Heads?

Authors:  Stephanie M McCarthy; Deborah J Hall; Mathew T Mathew; Joshua J Jacobs; Hannah J Lundberg; Robin Pourzal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.755

2.  Fretting-corrosion in hip taper modular junctions: The influence of topography and pH levels - An in-vitro study.

Authors:  Dmitry Royhman; Robin Pourzal; Deborah Hall; Hannah J Lundberg; Markus A Wimmer; Joshua Jacobs; Nadim J Hallab; Mathew T Mathew
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2021-03-12

3.  Importance of surgical assembly technique on the engagement of 12/14 modular tapers.

Authors:  A Wade; F Webster; A R Beadling; M G Bryant
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 1.617

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.