Abstract
The aim of this work was to study how the stress distributions of the hip joint’s components were changed if the activity was switched from walking to stair climbing for three different prostheses types subjected to either concentrated or distributed load. In the scope of the study, three different cemented prostheses, namely, Charnley, Muller, and Hipokrat were used for cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) reconstruction. The finite element modeling of the hip joint with prosthesis was developed for both hip contact and muscle forces during walking and stair climbing activities. The finite element analyses were then pursued for both concentrated and distributed loading conditions applied statically on these models. Maximum von Mises stresses and strains occurred on the cortical and trabecular layers of bones; prosthesis and cement mantle were determined in order to investigate the mechanical failure of cemented THA reconstruction subjected to the different femoral loading and the activity conditions. This study showed that prosthesis, loading, and activity types had a significant effect on the stresses of components of the hip joint utilized for predicting mechanical failure of the cemented THA reconstruction.
References
[1] Bitsakos C, Kerner J, Fisher I, Amis AA. The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur. J Biol 2005; 38: 133–139.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.03.005Search in Google Scholar
[2] Boyle C, Kim IY. Comparison of different hip prosthesis shapes considering micro-level bone remodeling and stress-shielding criteria using three-dimensional design space topology optimization. J Biol 2011; 44: 1722–1728.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.03.038Search in Google Scholar
[3] Hadley NA, Brown TD, Weinstein SL. The effects of contact pressure elevations and aseptic necrosis on the long-term clinical outcome of congenital hip dislocation. J Orthop Res 1990; 8: 504–513.10.1002/jor.1100080406Search in Google Scholar
[4] Heller MO, Bergmann G, Kassi JP, Claes L, Haas NP, Duda GN. Determination of muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing. J Biol 2005; 38: 1155–1163.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.05.022Search in Google Scholar
[5] Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160000 cases. Acta Orth Scan 2000; 71: 111–121.10.1080/000164700317413067Search in Google Scholar
[6] Hurwitz DE, Foucher KC, Andriacchi TP. A new parametric approach for modeling hip forces during gait. J Biol 2003; 36: 113–119.10.1016/S0021-9290(02)00328-7Search in Google Scholar
[7] Joshi MG, Advani SG, Miller F, Santare MH. Analysis of a femoral hip prosthesis designed to reduce stress shielding. J Biol 2000; 33: 1655–1662.10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00110-XSearch in Google Scholar
[8] Lenaerts G, De Groote F, Demeulenaere B, et al. Subject-specific hip geometry affects predicted hip joint contact forces during gait. J Biol 2008; 41: 1243–1252.10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.01.014Search in Google Scholar
[9] Maxian TA, Brown TD, Weinstein SL. Chronic stress tolerance levels for human articular cartilage: Two nonuniform contact models applied to long term follow-up of CDH. J Biol 1995; 28: 159–166.10.1016/0021-9290(94)00054-8Search in Google Scholar
[10] Mcnamara BP, Cristofolini L, Toni A, Taylor D. Relationship between bone-prosthesis bonding and load transfer in total rip reconstruction. J Biol 1997; 30: 621–630.Search in Google Scholar
[11] Okyar AF, Bayoglu R. The effect of loading in mechanical response predictions of bone lengthening. Med Eng Phys 2012; 34: 1362–1367.10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.07.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Pawlikowski M, Skalski K, Haraburda M. Process of hip joint prosthesis design including bone remodeling phenomenon. Comput Struc 2003; 81: 887–893.10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00428-5Search in Google Scholar
[13] Ramos A, Simoes JA. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys 2006; 28: 916–924.10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.12.006Search in Google Scholar
[14] Ramos A, Completo A, Relvas C, Simoes JA. Design process of a novel cemented hip femoral stem concept. Mater Des 2012; 33: 313–321.10.1016/j.matdes.2011.07.039Search in Google Scholar
[15] Senalp AZ, Kayabasi O, Kurtaran H. Static, dynamic and fatigue behavior of newly designed stem shapes for hip prosthesis using finite element analysis. Mater Des 2007; 28: 1577–1583.10.1016/j.matdes.2006.02.015Search in Google Scholar
[16] Stolk J, Maher SA, Verdonschot N, Prendergast PJ, Huiskes R. Can finite element models detect clinically inferior cemented hip implants? Clin Orthop Rel Res 2003; 409: 138–150.10.1097/01.blo.0000058882.03274.5eSearch in Google Scholar
[17] Stolk J, Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Hip-joint and abductor-muscle forces adequately represent in vivo loading of a cemented total hip reconstruction. J Biol 2001; 34: 917–926.10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00225-6Search in Google Scholar
[18] Stolk J, Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Stair climbing is more detrimental to the cement in hip replacement than walking. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2002; 405: 294–305.10.1097/00003086-200212000-00037Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Viceconti M, Ansaloni M, Baleani M, Toni A. The muscle standardized femur: a step forward in the replication of numerical studies in biomechanics. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2003; 217: 105–110.10.1243/09544110360579312Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[20] Watanabe Y, Shiba N, Matsuo S, Higuchi F, Tagawa Y, Inoue A. Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty finite element analysis of the femoral component. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15: 1–7.10.1054/arth.2000.1359Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2015 by De Gruyter
