Stefan Kinkel

The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study.

BACKGROUND Cerclage wires are widely used in revision hip surgery to reattach the lid of a femoral osteotomy. The present study compared the influence of multifilaments and monofilaments on primary stability of revision hip stems with different fixation principles. METHODS A standardized extended proximal femoral osteotomy was performed in the anterior cortex of 6 synthetic femora. We used a high-resolution measuring device to explore spatial micromovements of a diaphyseal and a metaphyseal fixating revision stem. Both of these were implanted in 3 femora. The specimens were measured again after consecutive restabilization of osteotomies with multifilaments and monofilaments. The movement graphs generated defined relative micromovements between stems and bones and the stabilizing effect of the two wire systems compared. FINDINGS Both multifilaments and monofilaments effected a major reduction of relative micromovements for both fixation principles. There were no differences in relative movements between the multifilament and monofilament treatments for the diaphyseal fixating stem. Yet for the metaphyseal fixating stem a significantly better restabilization was observed with multifilaments. INTERPRETATION Both multifilaments and monofilaments can support the revision hip stem in bridging the extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Yet, which wiring system should be chosen depends on the fixation principle of the revision stem. Multifilaments seem to be advantageous when used with metaphyseal fixating stems. However, the use of multifilaments with diaphyseal fixating components should be reconsidered as this might constrict the periosteal vascularity.

Primary stability of the Fitmore® stem: biomechanical comparison

PurposeAfter clinical introduction of the Fitmore® stem (Zimmer), we noticed the formation of cortical hypertrophies in a few cases. We questioned whether (1) the primary stability or (2) load transfer of the Fitmore® stem differs from other stems unassociated with the formation of hypertrophies. We compared the Fitmore® stem to the well-established CLS® stem.MethodsFour Fitmore® and four CLS® stems were implanted in eight synthetic femurs. A cyclic torque around the stem axis and a mediolateral cyclic torque were applied. Micromotions between stems and femurs were measured to classify the specific rotational implant stability and to analyse the bending behaviour of the stem.ResultsNo statistical differences were found between the two stem designs with respect to their rotational stability (p = 0.82). For both stems, a proximal fixation was found. However, for the mediolateral bending behavior, we observed a significantly (p < 0.01) higher flexibility of the CLS® stem compared to the Fitmore® stem.ConclusionHip stem implantation may induce remodelling of the periprosthetic bone structure. Considering the proximal fixation of both stems, rotational stability of the Fitmore® stem might not be a plausible explanation for clinically observed formation of hypertrophies. However, bending results support our hypothesis that the CLS® stem presumably closely follows the bending of the bone, whereas the shorter Fitmore® stem acts more rigidly. Stem rigidity and flexibility needs to be considered, as they may influence the load transfer at the implant–bone interface and thus possibly affect bone remodelling processes.

Strut grafts in revision hip arthroplasty faced with femoral bone defects: an experimental analysis

PurposeIn total hip arthroplasty fixation of revision stems can be demanding due to femoral bone loss. Strut grafts are often used for bone augmentation and stabilization of the newly inserted prosthesis. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of strut grafts on primary stability under various stem fixation conditions.MethodsTwo different revision stems (cylindrical and conical shape) were implanted into synthetic femora. Following a semicircular transfemoral osteotomy, three deficient femoral bearings were simulated (bony lid reattached with cable wires; weakened lid reattached with cable wires; strut grafts placed to the weakened lid with cable wires). Relative micro-movements were measured between prostheses and bones due to an axial moment applied to the stems.ResultsRelative movements correlated to the stem shape. The cylindrical stem showed higher movements increasing significantly with a weakened bony lid and portrayed a slight decrease of movements with strut graft application. No unequivocal influence of the weakened lid could be detected for the conical implant. Strut graft application did not show an additional stabilizing effect.ConclusionsThe primary stability of the cylindrical fixation concept decreases with impaired fixation conditions of the femur. A clear restabilizing effect with strut grafts could not be proven. A decrease of primary stability due to the impaired bone could not be observed for the conical stem shape. Additionally, strut grafts do not enhance fixation for this stem shape. We conclude that surgeons should not rely on a stabilizing effect of strut grafts in revision hip surgery.

Compound osteosynthesis for osteolyses and pathological fractures of the proximal femur.

Due to improved oncological therapeutic procedures with longer survival times, the stabilization of osteolyses and pathological fractures is gaining importance. The proximal femur is often affected by metastases. As femoral stability can be compromised by such bone lesions, stabilization as a palliative measure is indicated to restore function and relieve pain. Besides intramedullary osteosynthesis and endoprosthetic reconstruction, compound osteosynthesis is an alternative method for stabilization of the proximal femur. Between 1994 and 2004, 34 compound osteosyntheses were performed for a tumor-caused lesion compromising mechanical stability of the proximal femur. Of those cases, 22 double-plate compound osteosyntheses and 12 single-plate compound osteosyntheses were performed for 9 pathological fractures and 25 osteolyses. Both techniques provided good primary stability. The average survival time after compound osteosynthesis was 14.2 months (range, 0-72 months). Double-plate compound osteosyntheses showed a lower mechanical failure rate than single-plate compound osteosyntheses (14.3% vs 33.3%) and a higher survival probability after 5 years (76.4% vs 38.6%). No surgical revision was required due to perioperative complications in any case. We conclude that reliable stabilization of extensive osteolyses and pathological fractures of the proximal femur can be achieved with compound osteosynthesis. Our data suggest that double-plate compound osteosyntheses is a more favorable technique than single-plate compound osteosyntheses based on a lower rate of mechanical failure and higher survival probability.

Tibial revision knee arthroplasty with metaphyseal sleeves: The effect of stems on implant fixation and bone flexibility

Introduction Revision total knee arthoplasty often requires modular implants to treat bone defects of varying severity. In some cases, it may not be clear which module size and implant combination (e.g. sleeve and stem) should be chosen for a specific defect. When balancing implant stability and osseointegration against stress-shielding, it is important to choose an appropriate implant combination in order to match the given level of bone loss. Therefore, the necessity of stems in less extensive tibial defects and the advantage of different stems (lengths and stiffnesses) in combination with large metaphyseal sleeves on implant fixation and bone flexibility using a modular tibial revision knee system, were analyzed. Materials and methods Four different stem combinations for a tibial revision implant (Sigma TC3, DePuy) were compared to an intact bone. Standardized implantation with n = 4 synthetic tibial bones was performed after generating an Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Type T1 bone defect. Axial torques around the longitudinal stem axis and varus-valgus torques were separately applied to the implant. Micromotions of bone and implant were tracked using a digital image correlation system to calculate relative micromotions at the implant-bone-interface and bone deformation. Results Overall, using stems reduced the proximal micromotions of tray and sleeve compared to no stem, while reducing bone deformation proximally at the same time, indicating some potential for proximal stress-shielding compared to no stem. The potential for increased proximal stress-shield due to reduced proximal deformation appeared to be greater when using the longer stems. The location of lowest relative micromotions was also more distal when using long stems as opposed to short stems. A short stem (especially a smaller diameter short stem which still achieves diaphyseal fixation) displayed less potential for stress-shielding, but greater bone deformation distal to the tip of the stem than in the natural model. Discussion In the case of tibial revision implants with metaphyseal sleeves in a simple fully contained Type I defect, the absence of a stem provides for more natural bone deformation. However, adding a stem reduces overall relative micromotions, while introducing some risk of proximal stress-shielding due to increased diaphyseal fixation. Increasing stem length intensifies this effect. Short stems offered a balance between reduced micromotions and more proximal bone deformation that reduced the potential for stress-shielding when compared to long stems. A short stem with slightly smaller diameter (simulating a less stiff stem which still has diaphyseal fixation) increased the proximal bone deformation, but also tended to increase the bone deformation even further at the distal stem’s tip. Conclusion In conclusion, further investigation should be conducted on fully contained Type I defects and the addition of a stem to offer better initial stability, taking into account stem length (i.e. shorter or more flexible stems) to support metaphyseal fixation and allowing bending found in intact bone. In addition, further study into more extensive tibial defects is required to determine if the stability/micromotion trends observed in this study with stems and sleeves in Type I defects still apply in cases of extensive proximal bone loss.

Fixation pattern of conical and cylindrical modular revision hip stems in different size bone defects

PurposeFemoral defects often make it difficult to achieve sufficient fixation of the stem during revision surgery. No clinical studies comparing modular stems are available and differentiated recommendations are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the fixation of different revision stems in an experimental and standardised manner.MethodsSegmental AAOS type I and III defects were reproduced in four femur pairs and two modular stems of different shape (cylindrical and conical) were implanted. Interfacial stem–bone movements were measured under axial torque application to analyze the stem fixation depending on defect extension.ResultsBoth stems showed adequate fixation in AAOS type I defect. The defect extension significantly reduced the fixation of both implants. The fixation pattern changed significantly for the cylindrical-shaped stem but was maintained for the conical-shaped stem.ConclusionsShape as well as the extension of femoral defect have an impact on primary fixation. A type I defect seems to be bridgeable for both stems albeit in a different way. In contrast, stem-demanding activities during the healing phase have to be avoided for the conical-shaped stem in a type III defect, whereas the cylindrical-shaped stem has already ceased to be sufficiently stable in this case.

Primary Rotational Stability of Various Megaprostheses in a Biomechanical Sawbone Model with Proximal Femoral Defects Extending to the Isthmus

Purpose Fixation of proximal femoral megaprostheses is achieved in the diaphyseal isthmus. We hypothesized that after extended bone resection including the proximal part of the isthmus a reduced length of fixation will affect the stability and fixation characteristics of these megaprostheses. The aim of this study was to analyze in a validated sawbone model with extended proximal femoral defects which types of implants have sufficient primary stability to allow osteointegration and to describe their fixation characteristics. Methods Four different cementless megaprostheses were implanted into 16 Sawbones with an AAOS type III defect after resection 11cm below the lesser trochanter involving the proximal isthmus. To determine the primary implant stability relative micromotions between bone and implant were measured in relation to a cyclic torque of 7Nm applied on the longitudinal axis of the implant. We determined the fixation characteristics of the different implant designs by comparing these relative micromotions along the longitudinal stem axis. Results In the tested sawbones all studied implants showed sufficient primary stability to admit bone integration with relative micromotions below 150µm after adapting our results to physiologic hip joint loadings. Different fixation characteristics of the megaprostheses were determined, which could be explained by their differing design and fixation concepts. Conclusions Cementless megaprostheses of different designs seem to provide sufficient primary stability to bridge proximal femoral defects if the diaphyseal isthmus is partially preserved. In our sawbone model the different implant fixation patterns can be related to their stem designs. No evidence can be provided to favor one of the studied implants in this setting. However, femoral morphology is variable and in different isthmus configurations specific implant designs might be appropriate to achieve the most favorable primary stability, which enables bone integration and consequently long term implant stability.