Effects of femoral bone defect morphology on initial polished tapered stem stability in massive defect model: a biomechanical study.
Circumferential metal mesh
Femoral bone defect
Initial stem stability
Revision total hip replacement
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2019
01 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
11
02
2019
accepted:
11
07
2019
entrez:
3
8
2019
pubmed:
3
8
2019
medline:
14
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Good outcomes have been reported in revision total hip replacement with massive segmental defects using impaction bone grafting with circumferential metal meshes. However, the morphology of defects that require a mesh is poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a variety of segmental defects on load transmission to the proximal femur under both axial and rotational loads. Initial stability of the Exeter stem was investigated in a composite bone model using three medial bone defect morphologies: Long (length 5 cm × width 2 cm), Short (2.5 cm × 2 cm), Square (3.2 cm × 3.2 cm), Square with mesh (3.2 cm × 3.2 cm defect covered with metal mesh), and with no defect as control. Specimens (5 per group) were axially loaded and internally rotated up to 20° or to failure. Strain distributions of the femora were measured using a strain gauge. All Square group specimens failed while rotation was increasing. In the other four groups, failure was not observed in any specimens. Mean torsional stiffness in the Long (4.4 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.) and Square groups (4.3 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.) was significantly smaller than in the Control group (4.8 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.). In the medio-cranial region, the magnitude of the maximum principal strain in the Square group (1176.4 ± 100.9) was significantly the largest (Control, 373.2 ± 129.5, p < 0.001; Long, 883.7 ± 153.3, p = 0.027; Short, 434.5 ± 196.8, p < 0.001; Square with mesh, 256.9 ± 100.8, p < 0.001). Torsional stiffness, and both maximum and minimum principal strains in the Short group showed no difference compared to the Control group in any region. Bone defect morphology greatly affected initial stem stability and load transmission. If defect morphology is not wide and the distal end is above the lower end of the lesser trochanter, it may be acceptable to fill the bone defect region with bone cement. However, this procedure is not acceptable for defects extending distally below the lower end of the lesser trochanter or defects 3 cm or more in width.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Good outcomes have been reported in revision total hip replacement with massive segmental defects using impaction bone grafting with circumferential metal meshes. However, the morphology of defects that require a mesh is poorly defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a variety of segmental defects on load transmission to the proximal femur under both axial and rotational loads.
METHODS
METHODS
Initial stability of the Exeter stem was investigated in a composite bone model using three medial bone defect morphologies: Long (length 5 cm × width 2 cm), Short (2.5 cm × 2 cm), Square (3.2 cm × 3.2 cm), Square with mesh (3.2 cm × 3.2 cm defect covered with metal mesh), and with no defect as control. Specimens (5 per group) were axially loaded and internally rotated up to 20° or to failure. Strain distributions of the femora were measured using a strain gauge.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All Square group specimens failed while rotation was increasing. In the other four groups, failure was not observed in any specimens. Mean torsional stiffness in the Long (4.4 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.) and Square groups (4.3 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.) was significantly smaller than in the Control group (4.8 ± 0.3 Nm/deg.). In the medio-cranial region, the magnitude of the maximum principal strain in the Square group (1176.4 ± 100.9) was significantly the largest (Control, 373.2 ± 129.5, p < 0.001; Long, 883.7 ± 153.3, p = 0.027; Short, 434.5 ± 196.8, p < 0.001; Square with mesh, 256.9 ± 100.8, p < 0.001). Torsional stiffness, and both maximum and minimum principal strains in the Short group showed no difference compared to the Control group in any region.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Bone defect morphology greatly affected initial stem stability and load transmission. If defect morphology is not wide and the distal end is above the lower end of the lesser trochanter, it may be acceptable to fill the bone defect region with bone cement. However, this procedure is not acceptable for defects extending distally below the lower end of the lesser trochanter or defects 3 cm or more in width.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31370807
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2716-8
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-2716-8
pmc: PMC6670119
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
355Subventions
Organisme : DePuy Synthes Spine
ID : 2016005
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec;(369):230-42
pubmed: 10611878
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 Jan;82(1):103-7
pubmed: 10697324
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jul;83(7):1040-6
pubmed: 11451973
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Aug;84(8):1323-8
pubmed: 12177260
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Apr;85(4):639-46
pubmed: 12672839
J Arthroplasty. 2003 Oct;18(7):852-9
pubmed: 14566739
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Aug;19(5):598-604
pubmed: 15284981
Int Orthop. 2008 Oct;32(5):605-9
pubmed: 17447065
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Sep;462:130-6
pubmed: 17804966
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Apr;23(3):383-94
pubmed: 18358377
Acta Orthop. 2009 Jun;80(3):270-6
pubmed: 19421909
J Biomech. 2009 Oct 16;42(14):2238-42
pubmed: 19656513
Hip Int. 2010 Jan-Mar;20(1):50-5
pubmed: 20235067
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 May;470(5):1431-5
pubmed: 22015997
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Nov;93(11):1457-64
pubmed: 22058294
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012 Jul;100(5):1416-24
pubmed: 22121059
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012 Oct;132(10):1487-94
pubmed: 22684741
Hip Int. 2013 Sep-Oct;23(5):459-64
pubmed: 23813164
J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):1067-71
pubmed: 24295802
Acta Orthop. 2015 Apr;86(2):169-74
pubmed: 25280133
J Orthop Sci. 2015 Mar;20(2):331-9
pubmed: 25410982
J Biomech. 2015 Mar 18;48(5):797-800
pubmed: 25579990
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):517-22
pubmed: 25724411
J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 Aug 14;10:123
pubmed: 26269201
J Orthop Sci. 2016 May;21(3):336-41
pubmed: 26952390
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr;33(4):1120-1125
pubmed: 29223405
Bone Joint Res. 2018 Aug 4;7(7):485-493
pubmed: 30123498
J Biomech. 1978;11(1-2):75-85
pubmed: 659458
Acta Orthop Scand. 1984 Apr;55(2):141-5
pubmed: 6711279
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct;(295):172-8
pubmed: 8403644
J Biomech. 1993 Feb;26(2):111-9
pubmed: 8429054
J Orthop Res. 1996 Sep;14(5):769-77
pubmed: 8893771
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Nov;78(6):973-8
pubmed: 8951018