Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions – a comparing finite elements analysis

Authors: Rene Burchard, Sabrina Braas, Christian Soost, Jan Adriaan Graw, Jan Schmitt

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The main objective of every new development in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the longest possible survival of the implant. Periprosthetic stress shielding is a scientifically proven phenomenon which leads to inadvertent bone loss. So far, many studies have analysed whether implanting different hip stem prostheses result in significant preservation of bone stock. The aim of this preclinical study was to investigate design-depended differences of the stress shielding effect after implantation of a selection of short-stem THA-prostheses that are currently available.

Methods

Based on computerised tomography (CT), a finite elements (FE) model was generated and a virtual THA was performed with different stem designs of the implant. Stems were chosen by osteotomy level at the femoral neck (collum, partial collum, trochanter sparing, trochanter harming). Analyses were performed with previously validated FE models to identify changes in the strain energy density (SED).

Results

In the trochanteric region, only the collum-type stem demonstrated a biomechanical behaviour similar to the native femur. In contrast, no difference in biomechanical behaviour was found between partial collum, trochanter harming and trochanter sparing models. All of the short stem-prostheses showed lower stress-shielding than a standard stem.

Conclusion

Based on the results of this study, we cannot confirm that the design of current short stem THA-implants leads to a different stress shielding effect with regard to the level of osteotomy. Somehow unexpected, we found a bone stock protection in metadiaphyseal bone by simulating a more distal approach for osteotomy. Further clinical and biomechanical research including long-term results is needed to understand the influence of short-stem THA on bone remodelling and to find the optimal stem-design for a reduction of the stress shielding effect.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Morrey BF. Short-stemmed uncemented femoral component for primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1989;249(1):169–75.
2.
3.
Oh I, Harris WH. Proximal strain distribution in the loaded femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1978;60A:75–85.CrossRef
4.
Eng CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg. 1987;69B:45–55.
5.
Eng CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE. The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. Clin Orthop. 1990;261:63–81.
6.
Lerch M, Kurtz A, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Nolte I, Weigel N, Bouguecha A, Behrens BA. Bone remodelling after total hip arthroplasty with a short stemmed metaphyseal loading implant: finite elements analysis validated by a prospectice DEXA investigation. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(11):1822–9.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Lengsfeld M, Guenther D, Pressel T, Leppek R, Schmitt J, Griss P. Validation data for periprosthestic bone remodelling theories. J Biomech. 2002;35:1553–64.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Götze C, Ehrenbrink J, Ehrenbrink H. Is there a bone-preserving bone remodelling in short-stem prosthesis? DEXA analysis with the Nanos total hip arthroplasty. Z Orthop Unfall. 2010 Aug;148(4):398–405. doi:10.​1055/​s-0030-1250151.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Falez F, Casella F, Papalia M. Current concepts, classification and results in short stem hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015;38(3)SUPPL:S6-S13.
10.
Feyen H, Shimmin AJ. Is the length of the femoral component important in primary total hip replacement? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(4):442–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Joshi MG, Advani SG, Miller F, Santare MH. Analysis of a femoral hip prosthesis designed to reduce stress shielding. J Biomech. 2000;33:1655–62.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Chen HH, Morrey BF, An KN, Luo ZP. Bone remodelling charateristics of a short-stemmed total hip replacement. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(6):945–50.CrossRef
13.
Zeh A, Pankow F, Röllinhoff M, Delank S, Wohlrab D. A prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study of bone remodelling after implantation of the Nanos short-stemmed prosthesis. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(2):174–80.PubMed
14.
Munting E, Verhelpen M. Fixation and effect on bone strain pattern of a stemless hip prosthesis. J Biomech. 1995;28:949–61.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lengsfeld M, Burchard R, Guenther D, Pressel T, Schmitt J, Leppek R, Griss P. Femoral strain changes after total hip arthroplasty – patient-specific finite element analyses 12 years after operation. Med Phys Eng. 2005;27:649–54.CrossRef
16.
Weinans H, Sumner DR, Igloria R, Natarajan RN. Sensitivity of periprosthetic stress-shielding to load and the bone density-modulus relationship in subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech. 2000;33(7):809–17.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ciarelli MJ, Goldstein SA, Kuhn JL, Cody DD, Brown MB. Evaluation of orthogonal mechanical properties and density of human trabecular bone from the major metaphyseal regions with materials testing and computed tomography. J Orthopaed Res. 1991;9(5):674–82.CrossRef
18.
Schmitt J, Lengsfeld M, Alter P, Leppek R. Use of voxel-oriented femur models for stress analysis. Generation, calculation and validation of CT-based FEM models. Biomed Tech. 1995;40:175–81.CrossRef
19.
Schmitt J, Lengsfeld M, Leppek R, Alter P. Fully automated generation of hip prosthesis voxel models of the femur for finite element analysis. Comparison of direct and subsequent prosthesis implantation. Biomed Tech. 1997;42(6):150–5.CrossRef
20.
Pauwels F. Femoral neck fracture. A mechanical problem. Z Orthop Chir. [Suppl] 1935;63:1–138.
21.
Stolk J, Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Hip-joint and abductor-muscle forces adequately represent in vivo loading of a cemented total hip reconstruction. J Biomech. 2001;34(7):917–26.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Lengsfeld M, Kaminsky J, Merz B, Franke RP. Sensitivity of femoral strain pattern analyses to resultant and muscle forces at the hip joint. Med Eng Phys. 1996;18(1):70–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
24.
Gross S, Abel EW. A finite element analysis of hollow stemmed hip prostheses as a means of reducing stress shielding of the femur. J Biomech. 2001;34(8):995–1003.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Bobyn JD, Mortimer ES, Glassman AH, Engh CA, Miller JE, Brooks CE. Producing and avoiding stress shielding. Laboratory and clinical observations of noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;274:79–96.
26.
Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.
27.
28.
Ishaque BA, Gils J, Wienbeck S, Donle E, Basad E, Stürz H. Results after replacement of femoral neck prostheses - thrust plate prosthesis (TPP) versus ESKA cut prosthesis. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009;147(1):79–88. doi:10.​1055/​s-2008-1038992.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behaviour of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59(7):954–62.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Keller TS, Mao Z, Spengler DM. Young's modulus, bending strength, and tissue physical properties of human compact bone. J Orthop Res. 1990;8(4):592–603.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Snyder SM, Schneider E. Estimation of mechanical properties of cortical bone by computed tomography. J Orthop Res. 1991;9(3):422–31.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Rho JY, Hobatho MC, Ashman RB. Relations of mechanical properties to density and CT numbers in human bone. Med Eng Phys. 1995;17(5):347–55.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Bergmann G, Graichen F, Rohlmann A. Hip joint loading during walking and running, measured in two patients. J Biomech. 1993;26(8):969–90.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Salvati EA, Im VC, Aglietti P, Wilson PD Jr. Radiology of total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:74–82.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Ender SA, Machner A, Pap G, Hubbe J, Grashoff H, Neumann HW. Cementless CUT femoral neck prosthesis: increased rate of aseptic loosening after 5 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(5):616–21.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Lerch M, von der Haar-Tran A, Windhagen H, Behrens BA, Wefstaedt P, Stukenborg-Colsman CM. Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop. 2012;36(3):533–8. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-011-1361-0.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Freitag T, Hein MA, Wernerus D, Reichel H, Bieger R. Bone remodelling after femoral short stem implantation in total hip arthroplasty: 1-year results from a randomized DEXA study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(1):125–30. doi:10.​1007/​s00402-015-2370-z.CrossRefPubMed
41.
McCalden RW, Korczak A, Somerville L, Yuan X, Naudie DD. A randomised trial comparing a short and a standard-length metaphyseal engaging cementless femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(5):595–602. doi:10.​1302/​0301-620X.​97B5.​34994.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Gronewold J, Berner S, Olender G, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G, Floerkemeier T. Changes in strain patterns after implantation of a short stem with metaphyseal anchorage compared to a standard stem: an experimental study in synthetic bone. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2014;6(1):5211. doi:10.​4081/​or.​2014.​5211.CrossRef
43.
Floerkemeier T, Gronewold J, Berner S, Olender G, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, von Lewinski G. The influence of resection height on proximal femoral strain patterns after Metha short stem hip arthroplasty: an experimental study on composite femora. Int Orthop. 2013;37(3):369–77. doi:10.​1007/​s00264-012-1725-0.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Metadata
Title
Bone preserving level of osteotomy in short-stem total hip arthroplasty does not influence stress shielding dimensions – a comparing finite elements analysis
Authors
Rene Burchard
Sabrina Braas
Christian Soost
Jan Adriaan Graw
Jan Schmitt
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1702-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Prevalence of arthritis according to age, sex and socioeconomic status in six low and middle income countries: analysis of data from the World Health Organization study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) Wave 1

Review

An overview of osteoporosis and frailty in the elderly

Research article

Dyslipidaemia for patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures after the treatment of cancellous screws: a retrospective study with a 3-year minimum follow-up

Research article

Leptin differentially regulates chondrogenesis in mouse vertebral and tibial growth plates

Research article

Long-term outcome following upper extremity replantation after major traumatic amputation

Research article

Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) arthrodesis with reverse PHILOS plate and medial cannulated screws with lateral approach