Comparison of the fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of four cemented canine total hip replacement implants

Kurt S. Schulz, Cheri Nielsen, Susan M Stover, Philip H Kass

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective - To compare fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of 4 canine cemented total hip replacement implants and determine which implants are most compatible with current principles of cemented arthroplasty. Sample Population - Paired femurs from 16 adult mixed-breed dogs. Procedure - Femurs were prepared for femoral stem implantation of either the Bardet, BioMedtrix, Mathys, or Richards II implant. Mediolateral and craniocaudal radiographs were obtained with femoral components in situ. Cross-sectional analysis of implant fit was performed on transected cemented specimens. Computer-aided analyses of digitized images were performed. Results - The Bardet and Richards II implants reconstructed the original femoral head position significantly better than the other 2 implants. None of the implants allowed neutralization of the implant axis in the sagittal plane or were routinely centralized in the femoral canal.The Bardet implant had the smallest minimum distal tip offset in the sagittal plane. Greatest tip to cortex distance was provided by the Richards II implant in the transverse plane and the Mathys implant in the sagittal plane. The thinnest cement mantle regions for all implants were in the central longitudinal third of the femoral stem. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - The Bardet and BioMedtrix implants had stem design characteristics that were most compatible with principles of cemented stem fixation. None of the implants completely satisfied the theoretically optimal conditions of centralization and neutralization of the femoral stem. Innovative design modifications, therefore, may be needed if these conditions are important to the long-term success of canine total hip replacement. (Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1113-1121).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1113-1121
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Veterinary Research
Volume61
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 2000

Fingerprint

Hip Replacement Arthroplasties
thighs
Thigh
hips
Canidae
dogs
stems
femur
neutralization
Femur
cement
geometry
cross-sectional studies
Arthroplasty
cortex
Cross-Sectional Studies
Dogs
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

@article{239c9e64f50c43618d7cbb353c886e2a,
title = "Comparison of the fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of four cemented canine total hip replacement implants",
abstract = "Objective - To compare fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of 4 canine cemented total hip replacement implants and determine which implants are most compatible with current principles of cemented arthroplasty. Sample Population - Paired femurs from 16 adult mixed-breed dogs. Procedure - Femurs were prepared for femoral stem implantation of either the Bardet, BioMedtrix, Mathys, or Richards II implant. Mediolateral and craniocaudal radiographs were obtained with femoral components in situ. Cross-sectional analysis of implant fit was performed on transected cemented specimens. Computer-aided analyses of digitized images were performed. Results - The Bardet and Richards II implants reconstructed the original femoral head position significantly better than the other 2 implants. None of the implants allowed neutralization of the implant axis in the sagittal plane or were routinely centralized in the femoral canal.The Bardet implant had the smallest minimum distal tip offset in the sagittal plane. Greatest tip to cortex distance was provided by the Richards II implant in the transverse plane and the Mathys implant in the sagittal plane. The thinnest cement mantle regions for all implants were in the central longitudinal third of the femoral stem. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - The Bardet and BioMedtrix implants had stem design characteristics that were most compatible with principles of cemented stem fixation. None of the implants completely satisfied the theoretically optimal conditions of centralization and neutralization of the femoral stem. Innovative design modifications, therefore, may be needed if these conditions are important to the long-term success of canine total hip replacement. (Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1113-1121).",
author = "Schulz, {Kurt S.} and Cheri Nielsen and Stover, {Susan M} and Kass, {Philip H}",
year = "2000",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "1113--1121",
journal = "American Journal of Veterinary Research",
issn = "0002-9645",
publisher = "American Veterinary Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of four cemented canine total hip replacement implants

AU - Schulz, Kurt S.

AU - Nielsen, Cheri

AU - Stover, Susan M

AU - Kass, Philip H

PY - 2000/9

Y1 - 2000/9

N2 - Objective - To compare fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of 4 canine cemented total hip replacement implants and determine which implants are most compatible with current principles of cemented arthroplasty. Sample Population - Paired femurs from 16 adult mixed-breed dogs. Procedure - Femurs were prepared for femoral stem implantation of either the Bardet, BioMedtrix, Mathys, or Richards II implant. Mediolateral and craniocaudal radiographs were obtained with femoral components in situ. Cross-sectional analysis of implant fit was performed on transected cemented specimens. Computer-aided analyses of digitized images were performed. Results - The Bardet and Richards II implants reconstructed the original femoral head position significantly better than the other 2 implants. None of the implants allowed neutralization of the implant axis in the sagittal plane or were routinely centralized in the femoral canal.The Bardet implant had the smallest minimum distal tip offset in the sagittal plane. Greatest tip to cortex distance was provided by the Richards II implant in the transverse plane and the Mathys implant in the sagittal plane. The thinnest cement mantle regions for all implants were in the central longitudinal third of the femoral stem. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - The Bardet and BioMedtrix implants had stem design characteristics that were most compatible with principles of cemented stem fixation. None of the implants completely satisfied the theoretically optimal conditions of centralization and neutralization of the femoral stem. Innovative design modifications, therefore, may be needed if these conditions are important to the long-term success of canine total hip replacement. (Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1113-1121).

AB - Objective - To compare fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of 4 canine cemented total hip replacement implants and determine which implants are most compatible with current principles of cemented arthroplasty. Sample Population - Paired femurs from 16 adult mixed-breed dogs. Procedure - Femurs were prepared for femoral stem implantation of either the Bardet, BioMedtrix, Mathys, or Richards II implant. Mediolateral and craniocaudal radiographs were obtained with femoral components in situ. Cross-sectional analysis of implant fit was performed on transected cemented specimens. Computer-aided analyses of digitized images were performed. Results - The Bardet and Richards II implants reconstructed the original femoral head position significantly better than the other 2 implants. None of the implants allowed neutralization of the implant axis in the sagittal plane or were routinely centralized in the femoral canal.The Bardet implant had the smallest minimum distal tip offset in the sagittal plane. Greatest tip to cortex distance was provided by the Richards II implant in the transverse plane and the Mathys implant in the sagittal plane. The thinnest cement mantle regions for all implants were in the central longitudinal third of the femoral stem. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance - The Bardet and BioMedtrix implants had stem design characteristics that were most compatible with principles of cemented stem fixation. None of the implants completely satisfied the theoretically optimal conditions of centralization and neutralization of the femoral stem. Innovative design modifications, therefore, may be needed if these conditions are important to the long-term success of canine total hip replacement. (Am J Vet Res 2000;61:1113-1121).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034277562&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034277562&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10976745

AN - SCOPUS:0034277562

VL - 61

SP - 1113

EP - 1121

JO - American Journal of Veterinary Research

JF - American Journal of Veterinary Research

SN - 0002-9645

IS - 9

ER -