Christoph Lee

Do short-stemmed-prostheses induce periprosthetic fractures earlier than standard hip stems? A biomechanical ex-vivo study of two different stem designs

IntroductionThe causes of periprosthetic fractures of the femur due to the design of the prosthesis and the individual parameters of the patient are unexplored. By different anchorage techniques in cementless total hip arthroplasties, it is assumed that there are various load limits of the implant’s bearing femur.Materials and methodsIn the present study, we compared a standard hip stem (cementless Spotorno®) and a short-stemmed design (Mayo®) by an artificial reproduction of periprosthetic fractures in 20 femur specimens.ResultsThe measured fracture loads showed an extensive range, with higher maximum loads in the standard stem group. The bone mineral density and the subsiding pattern of the standard stems showed a significant correlation to the incidence of the periprosthetic fractures. In the experimental setup, a slightly lower fracture resistance was shown for the short-stemmed prosthesis. Additionally, it was shown that donors with a higher body mass index had a significantly increased fracture risk.ConclusionsShort-stemmed prostheses, especially the Mayo® hip, do not constitute a higher fracture risk. In general, an increased body mass index among patients with a cementless hip stem is associated with an increased fracture risk, particularly at high load values, i.e., resulting from a step during stumbling. Taking into account the ascertained results, the danger of provoking a femoral periprosthetic fracture can be reduced.

How do spinal segments move

PURPOSE To study and clarify the kinematics of spinal segments following cyclic torques causing axial rotation (T(z) (t)), lateral-flexion (T(x) (t)), flexion/extension (T(y) (t)). METHODS A 6D--Measurement of location, alignment, and migration of the instantaneous helical axis (IHA) as a function of rotational angle in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar segments subjected to axially directed preloads. RESULTS IHA retained an almost constant alignment, but migrated along distinct centrodes. THORACIC SEGMENTS: IHA was almost parallel to T(z) (t), T(x) (t), or T(y) (t), stationary for T(x) (t) or T(y) (t), and migrating for T(z) (t) along dorsally opened bows. IHA locations hardly depended on the position or size of axial preload. LUMBAR SEGMENTS: IHA was also almost parallel to T(z) (t), T(x) (t), or T(y) (t). In axial rotation IHA-migration along wide, ventrally or dorsally bent bows depending on segmental flexional/extensional status. Distances covered: 20-60mm. In lateral-flexion: IHA-migration to the left/right joint and vice versa. In flexion/extension IHA-migration from the facets to the centre of the disc. CERVICAL SEGMENTS: In flexion/flexion IHA was almost stationary for and parallel to T(y) (t). In axial rotation or lateral-flexion IHA intersected T(z) (t)/T(x) (t) under approximately -30 degrees /+30 degrees. CONCLUSIONS Generally joints alternate in guidance. Lumbar segments: in axial rotation and lateral-flexion parametrical control of IHA-position and IHA-migration by axial preload position. Cervical segments: kinematical coupling between axial rotation and lateral-flexion. The IHA-migration guided by the joints should be taken into account in the design of non-fusion implants. FE-calculations of spinal mechanics and kinematics should be based on detailed data of curvature morphology of the articulating surfaces of the joint facets.

Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: An in vitro comparison

Bone stock losses in cementless femoral stem revisions compromise a stable fixation. The surgeon has to rely on his wealth of experience in deciding which stem shape to use. The aim of our study was to compare the primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems subjected to femoral defects. Four current prostheses (two cylindrical, two conical) were implanted into four synthetic femora. Micro-motion was measured under torque application and femoral neck osteotomy and segmental AAOS Type I and III defects were simulated. The relative movements of all prostheses were significantly influenced by the extent of bone loss (p<0.01). Major differences were seen in fixation behavior (p<0.01). The main fixation area of conical stems is within the distal femoral isthmus, whereas cylindrical implants are dependent on proximal bone stock. In our study, cylindrical stems are advantageous for minor defects because they provide a proximal fixation. In cases of extensive substance loss, the conical implants showed lesser relative movements. These findings should be taken into account for clinical decisions.

Fracture Load for Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures in Cemented Versus Uncemented Hip Stems: An Experimental In Vitro Study

This cadaveric study examined fracture loads in cemented and uncemented hip stems. Additionally, individual data and bone quality were analyzed and correlated to fracture patterns and fracture load. Cemented or uncemented hip stems were implanted in a randomized fashion in 10 matched paired fresh-frozen femora (donor median age, 78 years, and donor median weight, 74.2 kg). Bone density was measured before the femurs were fractured under load (maximum load of 10,000 N), and fracture patterns were analyzed according to the Vancouver and Johansson classification systems. In the uncemented group, all of the femurs fractured with a median load of 2625 N (range, 1725-7647 N). In the cemented group, 5 femurs fractured with a median maximum load of 9127 N (range, 2845-10,000 N) and 5 femurs did not fracture with a maximum load of 10,000 N. Fracture load corresponded to 4 times and 8.8 times body weight in the uncemented and cemented groups, respectively. Fracture patterns corresponded to Vancouver type A fractures in uncemented stems and Vancouver type C fractures in cemented hip stems. Analysis showed a significant correlation between fracture load and bone density in the uncemented group, whereas there was no correlation in the cemented group. Patients with poor bone quality treated with an uncemented hip stem are at higher risk for periprosthetic fractures; therefore, we recommend cemented stems in this group of patients. Cementation appears to protect against periprosthetic fractures, probably from internal stiffening of the femoral cavity.

In-Vitro Rotational Stability of Cemented Stem Designs

This chapter describes the primary rotational stability of cemented stems. The 6-DOF measurement system type Heidelberg-Gottingen, which can track the complex spatial movement of stems, has characterised the anchoring stability of more than 50 uncemented stem designs. Different polished cemented hip stems have shown an overall tight fixation and excellent torsional stability using this system. Measurements have been repeated after debonding of the stems.

Failure of Polyethylene Inlays in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrieval Analysis.

A retrieval analysis has been performed on 50 polyethylene inlays of cementless screw ring implants (Mecring, Mecron, Berlin, Germany) to investigate the failure mechanism of this specific open cup hip arthroplasty design that has shown a high clinical failure rate. Design-specific damage modes like rim creep, collar fatigue, and backside wear were assessed. Furthermore, the inlays were measured using a CMM to determine deformation. In 90% backside wear was observed and collar fatigue occurred in 68% of the cases. Rim creep was present in 38% of the polyethylene inlays. In 90% of the cases the cup opening diameter was 32.1 mm or less and 46% had a diameter less than 32 mm. It seems that creep and deformation of the polyethylene leads to a reduced diameter at the cup opening and consequently decreased clearance. To avoid this type of failure, polyethylene inlays should be supported at the back by the cup to reduce the risk of ongoing creep deformation.