A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements.
BACKGROUND
The bone loss associated with revision surgery or pathology has been the impetus for developing modular revision total hip prostheses. Few studies have assessed these modular implants quantitatively from a mechanical standpoint.


METHODS
Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models were developed to mimic a hip implant alone (Construct A) and a hip implant-femur configuration (Construct B). Bonded contact was assumed for all interfaces to simulate long-term bony ongrowth and stability. The hip implants modeled were a Modular stem having two interlocking parts (Zimmer Modular Revision Hip System, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) and a Monoblock stem made from a single piece of material (Stryker Restoration HA Hip System, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Axial loads of 700 and 2000 N were applied to Construct A and 2000 N to Construct B models. Stiffness, strain, and stress were computed. Mechanical tests using axial loads were used for Construct A to validate the FE model. Strain gages were placed along the medial and lateral side of the hip implants at 8 locations to measure axial strain distribution.


RESULTS
There was approximately a 3% average difference between FE and experimental strains for Construct A at all locations for the Modular implant and in the proximal region for the Monoblock implant. FE results for Construct B showed that both implants carried the majority (Modular, 76%; Monoblock, 66%) of the 2000 N load relative to the femur. FE analysis and experiments demonstrated that the Modular implant was 3 to 4.5 times mechanically stiffer than the Monoblock due primarily to geometric differences.


CONCLUSIONS
This study provides mechanical characteristics of revision hip implants at sub-clinical axial loads as an initial predictor of potential failure.
Bougherara
Habiba
H
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B-2K3, Canada. zderor@smh.toronto.on.ca.
Zdero
Rad
R
Shah
Suraj
S
Miric
Milan
M
Papini
Marcello
M
Zalzal
Paul
P
Schemitsch
Emil H
EH
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003 Dec;11(2):159-65
14676341
Orthopedics. 2005 Sep;28(9 Suppl):s1057-8
16190036
J Biomech. 1993 Aug;26(8):969-90
8349721
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Jan;129(1):65-73
18389264
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 May;90(5):1068-77
18451400
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar;(420):176-80
15057094
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Feb;23(2):220-5
18280416
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007 May;22(4):431-9
17275151
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec;23(8):1132-9
18534471
J Biomech. 1997 Sep;30(9):959-65
9302620
Chir Organi Mov. 2003 Jul-Sep;88(3):281-4
15146945
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct;(355):47-56
9917590
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Jun;21(5):495-501
16457913
Adv Data. 2002 Jun 19;(329):1-18
12664934
Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:206-9
17429790
J Biomech Eng. 2007 Feb;129(1):12-9
17227093
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2009 Apr;223(3):303-14
19405436
Orthop Clin North Am. 1993 Oct;24(4):583-90
8414423
J Biomed Mater Res. 1996 Jun;31(2):167-82
8731205
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Jun;(339):121-31
9186210
J Trauma. 2008 May;64(5):1308-12
18469655
J Biomech. 1998 Oct;31(10):909-17
9840756
J Biomech. 1993 Apr-May;26(4-5):369-82
8478342
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2003 Jul;18(6):523-36
12828902
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001 Jun;87(4):331-9
11431628
J Biomech. 1998 Sep;31(9):841-6
9802785
Med Eng Phys. 2004 Mar;26(2):93-108
15036177
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Jul;21(6):594-602
16542761