Cargando…

A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements

BACKGROUND: The bone loss associated with revision surgery or pathology has been the impetus for developing modular revision total hip prostheses. Few studies have assessed these modular implants quantitatively from a mechanical standpoint. METHODS: Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bougherara, Habiba, Zdero, Rad, Shah, Suraj, Miric, Milan, Papini, Marcello, Zalzal, Paul, Schemitsch, Emil H
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20462448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-34
_version_ 1782182833811357696
author Bougherara, Habiba
Zdero, Rad
Shah, Suraj
Miric, Milan
Papini, Marcello
Zalzal, Paul
Schemitsch, Emil H
author_facet Bougherara, Habiba
Zdero, Rad
Shah, Suraj
Miric, Milan
Papini, Marcello
Zalzal, Paul
Schemitsch, Emil H
author_sort Bougherara, Habiba
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The bone loss associated with revision surgery or pathology has been the impetus for developing modular revision total hip prostheses. Few studies have assessed these modular implants quantitatively from a mechanical standpoint. METHODS: Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models were developed to mimic a hip implant alone (Construct A) and a hip implant-femur configuration (Construct B). Bonded contact was assumed for all interfaces to simulate long-term bony ongrowth and stability. The hip implants modeled were a Modular stem having two interlocking parts (Zimmer Modular Revision Hip System, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a Monoblock stem made from a single piece of material (Stryker Restoration HA Hip System, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Axial loads of 700 and 2000 N were applied to Construct A and 2000 N to Construct B models. Stiffness, strain, and stress were computed. Mechanical tests using axial loads were used for Construct A to validate the FE model. Strain gages were placed along the medial and lateral side of the hip implants at 8 locations to measure axial strain distribution. RESULTS: There was approximately a 3% average difference between FE and experimental strains for Construct A at all locations for the Modular implant and in the proximal region for the Monoblock implant. FE results for Construct B showed that both implants carried the majority (Modular, 76%; Monoblock, 66%) of the 2000 N load relative to the femur. FE analysis and experiments demonstrated that the Modular implant was 3 to 4.5 times mechanically stiffer than the Monoblock due primarily to geometric differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides mechanical characteristics of revision hip implants at sub-clinical axial loads as an initial predictor of potential failure.
format Text
id pubmed-2890679
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28906792010-06-24 A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements Bougherara, Habiba Zdero, Rad Shah, Suraj Miric, Milan Papini, Marcello Zalzal, Paul Schemitsch, Emil H J Orthop Surg Res Technical Note BACKGROUND: The bone loss associated with revision surgery or pathology has been the impetus for developing modular revision total hip prostheses. Few studies have assessed these modular implants quantitatively from a mechanical standpoint. METHODS: Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models were developed to mimic a hip implant alone (Construct A) and a hip implant-femur configuration (Construct B). Bonded contact was assumed for all interfaces to simulate long-term bony ongrowth and stability. The hip implants modeled were a Modular stem having two interlocking parts (Zimmer Modular Revision Hip System, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a Monoblock stem made from a single piece of material (Stryker Restoration HA Hip System, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Axial loads of 700 and 2000 N were applied to Construct A and 2000 N to Construct B models. Stiffness, strain, and stress were computed. Mechanical tests using axial loads were used for Construct A to validate the FE model. Strain gages were placed along the medial and lateral side of the hip implants at 8 locations to measure axial strain distribution. RESULTS: There was approximately a 3% average difference between FE and experimental strains for Construct A at all locations for the Modular implant and in the proximal region for the Monoblock implant. FE results for Construct B showed that both implants carried the majority (Modular, 76%; Monoblock, 66%) of the 2000 N load relative to the femur. FE analysis and experiments demonstrated that the Modular implant was 3 to 4.5 times mechanically stiffer than the Monoblock due primarily to geometric differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides mechanical characteristics of revision hip implants at sub-clinical axial loads as an initial predictor of potential failure. BioMed Central 2010-05-12 /pmc/articles/PMC2890679/ /pubmed/20462448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-34 Text en Copyright ©2010 Bougherara et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Technical Note
Bougherara, Habiba
Zdero, Rad
Shah, Suraj
Miric, Milan
Papini, Marcello
Zalzal, Paul
Schemitsch, Emil H
A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title_full A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title_fullStr A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title_full_unstemmed A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title_short A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements
title_sort biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using fe analysis and strain gage measurements
topic Technical Note
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890679/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20462448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-5-34
work_keys_str_mv AT bougherarahabiba abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT zderorad abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT shahsuraj abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT miricmilan abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT papinimarcello abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT zalzalpaul abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT schemitschemilh abiomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT bougherarahabiba biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT zderorad biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT shahsuraj biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT miricmilan biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT papinimarcello biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT zalzalpaul biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements
AT schemitschemilh biomechanicalassessmentofmodularandmonoblockrevisionhipimplantsusingfeanalysisandstraingagemeasurements