title: Influence of interface condition and implant design on bone remodelling and failure risk for the resurfaced femoral head.
abstract: Resurfacing of the femur has experienced a revival, particularly in younger and more active patients. The implant is generally cemented onto the reamed trabecular bone and theoretical remodelling for this configuration, as well as uncemented variations, has been studied with relation to component positioning for the most common designs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of different interface conditions, for alternative interior implant geometries, on bone strains in comparison to the native femur, and its consequent remodelling. A cylindrical interior geometry, two conical geometries and a spherical cortex-preserving design were compared with a standard implant (ASR, DePuy International, Ltd., UK), which has a 3° cone. Cemented as well as uncemented line to line and press-fit conditions were modelled for each geometry. A patient-specific finite element model of the proximal femur was used with simulated walking loads. Strain energy density was compared between the reference and resurfaced femur, and input into a remodelling algorithm to predict density changes post-operatively. The common cemented designs (cylindrical, slightly conical) had strain shielding in the superior femoral head (>35% reduction) as well as strain concentrations (strain>5%) in the neck regions near the implant rim. The cortex-preserving (spherical) and strongly conical designs showed less strain shielding. In contrast to the cemented implants, line to line implants showed a density decrease at the centre of the femoral head, while all press-fit versions showed a density increase (>100%) relative to the native femur, which suggests that uncemented press-fit implants could limit bone resorption.
authors.affiliation: Biomechanics Section, TUHH Hamburg University of Technology, Denickestraße 15, 21073 Hamburg, Germany. Stephan.rothstock@tuhh.de
authors.forename: Stephan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Rothstock
authors.forename: Anne
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Uhlenbrock
authors.forename: Nicholas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Bishop
authors.forename: Lindsay
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Laird
authors.forename: Roman
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Nassutt
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Morlock
mesh_terms: D016723:Bone Remodeling / Q000502:physiology*; D001842:Bone and Bones / Q000502:physiology*; D002484:Cementation; D005269:Femur / Q000473:pathology; D005270:Femur Head / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D006801:Humans; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012306:Risk; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods