Cargando…

Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the primary stability of two commercially available acetabular components from the same manufacturer, which differ only in geometry; a hemispherical and a peripherally enhanced design (peripheral self-locking (PSL)). The objective was to determine whether altered geome...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Antoniades, G., Smith, E. J., Deakin, A. H., Wearing, S. C., Sarungi, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2013
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.212.2000193
_version_ 1782295514022150144
author Antoniades, G.
Smith, E. J.
Deakin, A. H.
Wearing, S. C.
Sarungi, M.
author_facet Antoniades, G.
Smith, E. J.
Deakin, A. H.
Wearing, S. C.
Sarungi, M.
author_sort Antoniades, G.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study compared the primary stability of two commercially available acetabular components from the same manufacturer, which differ only in geometry; a hemispherical and a peripherally enhanced design (peripheral self-locking (PSL)). The objective was to determine whether altered geometry resulted in better primary stability. METHODS: Acetabular components were seated with 0.8 mm to 2 mm interference fits in reamed polyethylene bone substrate of two different densities (0.22 g/cm(3) and 0.45 g/cm(3)). The primary stability of each component design was investigated by measuring the peak failure load during uniaxial pull-out and tangential lever-out tests. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in seating force (p = 0.104) or primary stability (pull-out p = 0.171, lever-out p = 0.087) of the two components in the low-density substrate. Similarly, in the high-density substrate, there was no statistically significant difference in the peak pull-out force (p = 0.154) or lever-out moment (p = 0.574) between the designs. However, the PSL component required a significantly higher seating force than the hemispherical cup in the high-density bone analogue (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Higher seating forces associated with the PSL design may result in inadequate seating and increased risk of component malpositioning or acetabular fracture in the intra-operative setting in high-density bone stock. Our results, if translated clinically, suggest that a purely hemispherical geometry may have an advantage over a peripherally enhanced geometry in high density bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:264–9.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3860168
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38601682013-12-16 Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced? Antoniades, G. Smith, E. J. Deakin, A. H. Wearing, S. C. Sarungi, M. Bone Joint Res Hip OBJECTIVE: This study compared the primary stability of two commercially available acetabular components from the same manufacturer, which differ only in geometry; a hemispherical and a peripherally enhanced design (peripheral self-locking (PSL)). The objective was to determine whether altered geometry resulted in better primary stability. METHODS: Acetabular components were seated with 0.8 mm to 2 mm interference fits in reamed polyethylene bone substrate of two different densities (0.22 g/cm(3) and 0.45 g/cm(3)). The primary stability of each component design was investigated by measuring the peak failure load during uniaxial pull-out and tangential lever-out tests. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in seating force (p = 0.104) or primary stability (pull-out p = 0.171, lever-out p = 0.087) of the two components in the low-density substrate. Similarly, in the high-density substrate, there was no statistically significant difference in the peak pull-out force (p = 0.154) or lever-out moment (p = 0.574) between the designs. However, the PSL component required a significantly higher seating force than the hemispherical cup in the high-density bone analogue (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Higher seating forces associated with the PSL design may result in inadequate seating and increased risk of component malpositioning or acetabular fracture in the intra-operative setting in high-density bone stock. Our results, if translated clinically, suggest that a purely hemispherical geometry may have an advantage over a peripherally enhanced geometry in high density bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:264–9. British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2013-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3860168/ /pubmed/24326398 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.212.2000193 Text en ©2013 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery ©2013 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Hip
Antoniades, G.
Smith, E. J.
Deakin, A. H.
Wearing, S. C.
Sarungi, M.
Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title_full Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title_fullStr Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title_full_unstemmed Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title_short Primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
title_sort primary stability of two uncemented acetabular components of different geometry: hemispherical or peripherally enhanced?
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860168/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326398
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.212.2000193
work_keys_str_mv AT antoniadesg primarystabilityoftwouncementedacetabularcomponentsofdifferentgeometryhemisphericalorperipherallyenhanced
AT smithej primarystabilityoftwouncementedacetabularcomponentsofdifferentgeometryhemisphericalorperipherallyenhanced
AT deakinah primarystabilityoftwouncementedacetabularcomponentsofdifferentgeometryhemisphericalorperipherallyenhanced
AT wearingsc primarystabilityoftwouncementedacetabularcomponentsofdifferentgeometryhemisphericalorperipherallyenhanced
AT sarungim primarystabilityoftwouncementedacetabularcomponentsofdifferentgeometryhemisphericalorperipherallyenhanced