Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System

James Y. Kim, Kei Hayashi, Tanya C. Garcia, Sun Young Kim, Rachel Entwistle, Amy Kapatkin, Susan M Stover

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare (1) proximal femoral axial strains, (2) femoral head deflection, and (3) failure mechanical properties, between Helica head and neck prosthesis implanted femora and normal femora. Study Design: In vitro study. Sample Population: Cadaveric canine femora (n = 5 pair). Methods: Femoral bone strains and head displacement during in vitro simulation of midstance of the gallop were evaluated using cadaveric femurs cyclically loaded in vitro. Strains and displacements were compared within femurs, before and after, prosthesis implantation; and throughout cycling to seek evidence of movement with cyclic loading. Subsequently, implanted femurs and contralateral, intact femurs were loaded to failure to compare failure mechanical properties and modes of failure. Results: Proximal femoral axial strains were significantly different between intact and implanted femora on all 4 cortical surfaces (P <.05). Compressive strains were lower in the implanted femur on all cortical surfaces, except on the caudal surface which was higher. No difference was noted for femoral head angle under an axial load corresponding to gallop (P >.05). Vertical head displacement was ~0.1 mm greater for implanted femora than intact femora (P <.05). Yield and failure loads and yield energy of implanted femora were 39-54% lower than those for intact femora (P <.05). Mode of failure for both the intact and implanted femora did not appear to be different. Conclusion: Helica femoral prosthesis alters strain distribution in the proximal aspect of the femur and exhibits initial micromotion. Failure load in axial compression of the Helica-implanted femur is less than that of the normal femur, but greater than that expected in vivo.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)94-102
Number of pages9
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

prostheses
thighs
Thigh
screws
hips
femur
Femur
Hip
Head
Prostheses and Implants
mechanical properties
Prosthesis Implantation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System. / Kim, James Y.; Hayashi, Kei; Garcia, Tanya C.; Kim, Sun Young; Entwistle, Rachel; Kapatkin, Amy; Stover, Susan M.

In: Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 94-102.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, JY, Hayashi, K, Garcia, TC, Kim, SY, Entwistle, R, Kapatkin, A & Stover, SM 2012, 'Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System', Veterinary Surgery, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 94-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-950X.2011.00890.x
Kim, James Y. ; Hayashi, Kei ; Garcia, Tanya C. ; Kim, Sun Young ; Entwistle, Rachel ; Kapatkin, Amy ; Stover, Susan M. / Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System. In: Veterinary Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. 94-102.
@article{2ae0fd85d7d84837a675c550698f49c1,
title = "Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System",
abstract = "Objective: To compare (1) proximal femoral axial strains, (2) femoral head deflection, and (3) failure mechanical properties, between Helica head and neck prosthesis implanted femora and normal femora. Study Design: In vitro study. Sample Population: Cadaveric canine femora (n = 5 pair). Methods: Femoral bone strains and head displacement during in vitro simulation of midstance of the gallop were evaluated using cadaveric femurs cyclically loaded in vitro. Strains and displacements were compared within femurs, before and after, prosthesis implantation; and throughout cycling to seek evidence of movement with cyclic loading. Subsequently, implanted femurs and contralateral, intact femurs were loaded to failure to compare failure mechanical properties and modes of failure. Results: Proximal femoral axial strains were significantly different between intact and implanted femora on all 4 cortical surfaces (P <.05). Compressive strains were lower in the implanted femur on all cortical surfaces, except on the caudal surface which was higher. No difference was noted for femoral head angle under an axial load corresponding to gallop (P >.05). Vertical head displacement was ~0.1 mm greater for implanted femora than intact femora (P <.05). Yield and failure loads and yield energy of implanted femora were 39-54{\%} lower than those for intact femora (P <.05). Mode of failure for both the intact and implanted femora did not appear to be different. Conclusion: Helica femoral prosthesis alters strain distribution in the proximal aspect of the femur and exhibits initial micromotion. Failure load in axial compression of the Helica-implanted femur is less than that of the normal femur, but greater than that expected in vivo.",
author = "Kim, {James Y.} and Kei Hayashi and Garcia, {Tanya C.} and Kim, {Sun Young} and Rachel Entwistle and Amy Kapatkin and Stover, {Susan M}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-950X.2011.00890.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "94--102",
journal = "Veterinary Surgery",
issn = "0161-3499",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biomechanical Evaluation of Screw-In Femoral Implant in Cementless Total Hip System

AU - Kim, James Y.

AU - Hayashi, Kei

AU - Garcia, Tanya C.

AU - Kim, Sun Young

AU - Entwistle, Rachel

AU - Kapatkin, Amy

AU - Stover, Susan M

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - Objective: To compare (1) proximal femoral axial strains, (2) femoral head deflection, and (3) failure mechanical properties, between Helica head and neck prosthesis implanted femora and normal femora. Study Design: In vitro study. Sample Population: Cadaveric canine femora (n = 5 pair). Methods: Femoral bone strains and head displacement during in vitro simulation of midstance of the gallop were evaluated using cadaveric femurs cyclically loaded in vitro. Strains and displacements were compared within femurs, before and after, prosthesis implantation; and throughout cycling to seek evidence of movement with cyclic loading. Subsequently, implanted femurs and contralateral, intact femurs were loaded to failure to compare failure mechanical properties and modes of failure. Results: Proximal femoral axial strains were significantly different between intact and implanted femora on all 4 cortical surfaces (P <.05). Compressive strains were lower in the implanted femur on all cortical surfaces, except on the caudal surface which was higher. No difference was noted for femoral head angle under an axial load corresponding to gallop (P >.05). Vertical head displacement was ~0.1 mm greater for implanted femora than intact femora (P <.05). Yield and failure loads and yield energy of implanted femora were 39-54% lower than those for intact femora (P <.05). Mode of failure for both the intact and implanted femora did not appear to be different. Conclusion: Helica femoral prosthesis alters strain distribution in the proximal aspect of the femur and exhibits initial micromotion. Failure load in axial compression of the Helica-implanted femur is less than that of the normal femur, but greater than that expected in vivo.

AB - Objective: To compare (1) proximal femoral axial strains, (2) femoral head deflection, and (3) failure mechanical properties, between Helica head and neck prosthesis implanted femora and normal femora. Study Design: In vitro study. Sample Population: Cadaveric canine femora (n = 5 pair). Methods: Femoral bone strains and head displacement during in vitro simulation of midstance of the gallop were evaluated using cadaveric femurs cyclically loaded in vitro. Strains and displacements were compared within femurs, before and after, prosthesis implantation; and throughout cycling to seek evidence of movement with cyclic loading. Subsequently, implanted femurs and contralateral, intact femurs were loaded to failure to compare failure mechanical properties and modes of failure. Results: Proximal femoral axial strains were significantly different between intact and implanted femora on all 4 cortical surfaces (P <.05). Compressive strains were lower in the implanted femur on all cortical surfaces, except on the caudal surface which was higher. No difference was noted for femoral head angle under an axial load corresponding to gallop (P >.05). Vertical head displacement was ~0.1 mm greater for implanted femora than intact femora (P <.05). Yield and failure loads and yield energy of implanted femora were 39-54% lower than those for intact femora (P <.05). Mode of failure for both the intact and implanted femora did not appear to be different. Conclusion: Helica femoral prosthesis alters strain distribution in the proximal aspect of the femur and exhibits initial micromotion. Failure load in axial compression of the Helica-implanted femur is less than that of the normal femur, but greater than that expected in vivo.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864970646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864970646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2011.00890.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-950X.2011.00890.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22092256

AN - SCOPUS:84864970646

VL - 41

SP - 94

EP - 102

JO - Veterinary Surgery

JF - Veterinary Surgery

SN - 0161-3499

IS - 1

ER -