Biomechanical Analysis of Stem Malalignment in Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    Hip resurfacing arthroplasty was developed as an alternative surgical procedure to total hip arthroplasty. In this procedure, the femoral head is not removed; instead it is cut or trimmed and then capped with a metal cap. This procedure is not new news in surgery; it has been performed since the early 1970’s. Basically, there are common complications between these two procedures which are fracture, malalignment of implant, bleeding and dislocation. Thus, in this study, the malalignment of implant was found to often occur in different conditions such as varus, valgus, anterversion and retroversion conditions. The objective of this study was to develop the finite element models of Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty, to investigate the biomechanical behavior of hip arthroplasty and to examine the effects of implant malalignment as to predict the stability of the femoral component. The analyses were done under the loading conditions during normal walking for five cases of implant malalignment which were varus, valgus, sagittal extended and sagittal flexed. Both the femur and implant were developed and analyzed using computational software, namely ABAQUS 6.13. This study demonstrates that resurfacing arthroplasty will have harmful biomechanical effects when the implants are misaligned during the procedure.




  • Keywords

    Hip; Resurfacing; Finite Element; Femoral Head; Implant Malalignment

  • References

      [1] Abdullah AH, Todo M, & Nakashima Y. (2017). Prediction of damage formation in hip arthroplasties by finite element analysis using computed tomography images. Medical engineering & physics, 44, 8-15.

      [2] Khalid MSM & Yunus R. (2012). Multiplanar reconstructed ct study of normal acetabulum-inclination angle, anteversion angle and acetabular depth (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia).

      [3] McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K & Pynsent P. (1996). Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: Experience of the mcminn prosthesis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 329.

      [4] Freeman MA & Bradley GW (1983). ICLH surface replacement of the hip. An analysis of the first 10 years. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 65(4), 405-411.

      [5] Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M., Graichen F, Rohlmann A, Strauss J, & Duda GN (2001). Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. Journal of Biomechanics, 34(7), 859-871.

      [6] Kendal AR, Prieto Alhambra D, Arden NK, Carr A, & Judge A. (2016). Mortality rates at 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip replacement in England. Br J Sports Med, 50(3), 187-187.

      [7] Udofia IJ, Yew A, & Jin ZM. (2004). Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 218(5), 293-305.

      [8] Watanabe Y, Shiba N, Matsuo S, Higuchi F, Tagawa Y, & Inoue A. (2000). Biomechanical study of the resurfacing hip arthroplasty: Finite element analysis of the femoral component. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 15(4), 505-511.

      [9] Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, Graichen F, Rohlmann, A, Strauss J, & Duda GN. (2001). Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. Journal of Biomechanics, 34(7), 859-871.

      [10] Shimmin AJ & Back D. (2005). Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 87(4), 463-464.

      [11] Aulakh TS, Jayasekera N, Singh R, Patel A, Roulahamin N, Kuiper JH, & Richardson JB. (2015). Efficacy of hip resurfacing arthroplasty: 6 year results from an international multisurgeon prospective cohort study. Acta Orthop Belg, 81(2), 197-208.




Article ID: 25704
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.42.25704

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.