Purpose. The effects of
Retrieval investigations have shown that cracking or rim failure of polyethylene hip liners may occur at the superior aspect of the liner, in the area that engages the locking ring of the shell1. Failure could occur due to acetabular liner/stem impingement and/or improper cup position. Other contributing factors may include high body mass index, patient activity and design characteristics such as polyethylene material properties, thin liner rim geometry and cup rim design. Currently no standard multi-axis simulator methodology exists for high angle rim fatigue testing, although tests have been developed using static uniaxial load frames2. The purpose of this study was to develop a technique to create a clinically relevant rim crack/fracture event on a 4-axis hip simulator, and to understand the contribution of component design and loading and motion parameters. A method for creating rim fracture Introduction
Method
Within total hip replacement, articulation of the femoral head near the rim of the acetabular liner creates undesirable conditions leading to a propensity for dislocation[1], increased contact stresses[2], increased load and torque imparted on the acetabular component[3], and increased wear[4]. Propensity for rim loading is affected by prosthesis placement, as well as the kinematics and loading of the patient. The present study investigates these effects. CT scans from an average-sized patientwere segmented for the hemipelvis and femur of interest. DePuy Synthes implant models were aligned in a neutral position in Hypermesh. The acetabular liner was assigned deformable solid material properties, and the remainder of the model was assigned rigid properties. Joint reaction forces and kinematics of hip flexion were taken from the public Orthoload database to represent ADLs [5]: Active flexion lying on a table, gait, bending to lift and move a load, and sit-stand. The pelvis was fully constrained, while three-degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) forces were applied to the femur. Hip flexion was kinematically-prescribed while internal-external (I-E) and adduction-abduction (Ad-Ab) DOFs were constrained. Angles of acetabular implant positioning were based on published data by Rathod [6]. Femoral implant position was chosen based on cadaveric in vitro DePuy Synthes measurements of variation in femoral prosthesis position reported previously [7]. Acetabular and Femoral alignment angles were represented for nominal position, as well as positioning + 1σ and + 2σ from the mean in both anteversion and inclination for acetabular components, and both Varus/Valgus and Flexion (angle in sagittal plane) for the femoral component. The analyses were automated within Matlab to execute 68 finite element analyses in Abaqus Explicit and structured in a DOE style analysis with Cup inclination, Cup version, Stem Flexion, and Stem Varus/Valgus, and Activity as variables of interest (64 runs + 4 centerpoints = 68 analyses). From a previous study it was known that acetabular component inclination had the greatest effect on contact pressure location [7], so all data were analyzed relative to inclination, allowing other positioning variables to be represented as variation per inclination position. Results are presented as a percentage, with 0% being pole loading and 100% being rim loading, to normalize for head diameter.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) deformities are a potential precursor to hip osteoarthritis and an important contributor to non-arthritic hip pain. Some hips with FAI deformities develop symptoms of pain in the hip and groin that are primarily position related. The reason for pain generation in these hips is unclear. Understanding potential impingement mechanisms in FAI hips will help us understand pain generation. Impingement between the femoral head-neck contour and
Introduction. Malalignment of cup in total hip replacement (THR) increases rates of dislocation, impingement, acetabular migration, pelvic osteolysis, leg length discrepancy and polyethylene wear. Many surgeons orientate the cup in the same anteversion and inclination as the inherent anatomy of the acetabulum. The transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) and
INTRODUCTION. Mal-positioning of the acetabular component in total hip replacement (THR) could lead to edge loading, accelerated component wear, impingement and dislocation [1,2]. In order to achieve a successful position for the acetabular component, the assessment of the acetabular orientation with reference to different coordinate systems is important [3]. The aims of the present study were to establish a pelvic coordinate system and a global body coordinate system, and to assess the acetabular orientations of natural hips with reference to the two coordinate systems. METHODS. Three-dimensional (3D) computed tomographic (CT) images of 56 subjects (28 males and 28 females) lying supine were obtained from a public image archive (Cancer Image Archive, website: . www.cancerimagingarchive.net. ). 3D solid models of pelvis and spine were generated from the CT images. Two coordinate systems, pelvic and global body coordinate systems, were established. The pelvic coordinate system was established based on four bony landmarks on the pelvis: the bilateral anterior superior iliac spines (RASIS and LASIS) and the bilateral pubic tubercles (RPT and LPT). The global body coordinate system was generated based on the bony landmarks on the spine: the geometric centers of five lumbar vertebrae bodies and the most dorsal points of five corresponding spinous processes, as well as the anterior sacral promontory (Fig 1a and 1b). The
Introduction. Optimal orientation of the acetabular cup is vital issue not only for primary but revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Especially in revision THA, malorientation of the cup is likely to occur because anatomical landmark around
Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants a decade ago: Type 1 - augment screwed onto the superolateral
Introduction. In recent years, there has been a significant advancement in our understanding of femoro-acetabular impingement and associated labral and chondral pathology. Surgeons worldwide have demonstrated the successful treatment of these lesions via arthroscopic and open techniques. The aim of this study is to validate a simple and reproducible classification system for acetabular chondral lesions. Methods. In our classification system, the acetabulum is first divided into 6 zones as described by Ilizalithurri VM et al [Arthroscopy 24(5) 534-539]. The cartilage is then graded as 0 to 4 as follows: Grade 0 – normal articular cartilage lesions; Grade 1 softening or wave sign; Grade 2 - cleavage lesion; Grade 3 - delamination and Grade 4 –exposed bone. The site of the lesion is further typed as A, B or C based on whether the lesion is 1/3 distance from
Background. Femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI) is increasingly recognised as a cause of mechanical hip symptoms in sportspersons. In femoro-acetabular impingement abnormal contact occurs between the proximal femur and the
Introduction. Geometric variations of the hip joint can give rise to repeated abnormal contact between the femur and
Standard evaluation and diagnosis of pincer-type femoroacetabular impingment (FAI) relies on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs, clinical evaluation, and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, the current evaluation techniques do not offer a method for accurately defining the amount of
Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft, avoiding the potential for later graft resorption and the resulting loss of mechanical support that can follow. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants a decade ago: Type 1 – augment screwed onto the superolateral
Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented porous ingrowth components can be used for reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, where smaller segmental or cavitary defects are typically present. But when stable structural support on host bone is lacking, highly porous metal acetabular augments have been described as an alternative to large structural allograft, avoiding the potential for later graft resorption and the resulting loss of mechanical support that can follow. The fundamental concept behind these acetabular augments is the provision of critical additional fixation, structural support and increased contact area against host bone over the weeks following surgery while the desired ingrowth into porous implant surfaces is occurring. Technique: Three separate patterns of augment placement have been utilised in our practice since the development of these implants: Type 1 - augment screwed onto the superolateral
To assess the current literature on suture anchor placement for the purpose of identifying factors that lead to suture anchor perforation and techniques that reduce the likelihood of complications. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched, and two reviewers independently screened the resulting literature. Methodological quality of all included papers was assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Results are presented in a narrative summary fashion using descriptive statistics. Fourteen studies were included in this review. Four case series (491 patients, 56.6% female, mean age 33.9 years), nine controlled cadaveric/laboratory studies (111 cadaveric hips and 12 sawbones, 42.2% female, mean age 60.0 years), and one randomized controlled trial (37 hips, 55.6% female, mean age 34.2 years) were included. Anterior cortical perforation by suture anchors led to pain and impingement of pelvic neurovascular structures. The anterior acetabular positions (three to four o'clock) had the thinnest bone, smallest rim angles, and highest incidence of articular perforation. Drilling angles from 10° to 20° measured off the coronal plane were acceptable. The mid-anterior (MA) and distal anterolateral (DALA) portals were used successfully, with some studies reporting difficulty placing anchors at anterior locations via the DALA portal. Small-diameter (< 1 .8-mm) suture anchors had a lower in vivo incidence of articular perforation with similar stability and pull-out strength in biomechanical studies. Suture anchors at anterior
Optimal alignment of the acetabular cup component is crucial for good outcome of total hip arthroplasty [THA]. Increased accuracy of implant positioning may improve clinical outcome. To achieve this, patient specific instrumentation was developed. A patient-specific guide manufactured by 3D printing was designed to aid in positioning of the cup component with a pre-operatively defined anteversion and inclination angle. The guide fits perfectly on the
Introduction. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) causes anterior hip pain, labral tears and damage to the articular cartilage leading to early osteoarthritis of the hip. Surgical hip dislocation and osteoplasty of the femoral neck and
HXLPE acetabular liners were introduced to reduce wear-related complications in THA. However, post-irradiation thermal free radical stabilization can compromise mechanical properties, leave oxidation-prone residual free radicals, or both. Reports of mechanical failure of HXLPE
Introduction. Highly crosslinked, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (HXLPE) acetabular liners inherently have a risk of fatigue failure associated with femoral neck impingement. One of the potential reasons for liner failure was reported as crosslinking formulations of polyethylene, increasing the brittleness and structural rigidity. In addition, the acetabular component designs greatly affect the mechanical loading scenario, such as the offset (lateralized) liners with protruded rim above the metal shells, which commonly induce a weak resistance to rim impingement. The purpose of the present study was to compare the influence of the liner offset length on the impingement resistance in the annealed (first generation) and vitamin E-blended (second-generation) HXLPE liners with a commercial design. Materials and Methods. The materials tested were the 95-kGy irradiated annealed GUR1020, and the 300-kGy irradiated vitamin E-blended GUR1050 HXLPE offset liners, which were referred to as “20_95” and “50E_300”, respectively. These liners had 2, 3, 4-mm rim offset, 2.45-mm rim thickness, and 36-mm internal diameter. Their rims were protruded above the metal rim at 2, 3, 4mm. Rim impingement testing was performed using an electrodynamic axial-torsional machine. The cyclic impingement load of 25–250N was applied on the rims through the necks of the femoral stems at 1Hz. The rotational torque was simultaneously generated by swinging the stem necks on the rims at 1Hz and its rotational angle was set at the range of 0–10˚. The percent crystallinity was analyzed on the as-received (intact) and impinged HXLPE
A well-fixed uncemented acetabular component is most commonly removed for chronic infection, malposition with recurrent dislocation, and osteolysis. However, other cups may have to be removed for a broken locking mechanism, a bad “track record”, and for metal-on-metal articulation problems. Modern uncemented acetabular components are hemispheres which have 3-dimensional ingrowth patterns. Coatings include titanium or cobalt-chromium alloy beads, mesh, and now the so-called “enhanced coatings”, such as tantalum trabecular metal, various highly porous titanium metals, and 3-D printed metal coatings. These usually pose a problem for safe removal without fracture of the pelvis or creation of notable bone deficiency. Preoperative planning is essential for safe and efficient removal of these well-fixed components. Strongly consider getting the operative report, component “stickers”, and contacting the implant manufacturer for information. There should a preoperative check list of the equipment and trial implants needed, including various screwdrivers, trial liners, and a chisel system. The first step in component removal is excellent 360-degree exposure of the