EXPLORING THE “FRENCH PARADOX”: A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CRACK PROPAGATION AND IMPLANT STABILITY USING DIFFERENT CEMENTATION PHILOSOPHIES

Abstract

Introduction: It is generally accepted that the cement mantle surrounding femoral hip implants should be at least 2–3 mm thick. To achieve that goal, manufactures or surgeons often undersize the stem compared to the broach. However, some implants, such as the Charnley-Kerboul stem, are typically cemented line-to-line i.e. with a broach and stem of the same size. Despite their “minimal” cement mantle, these stems are very successful. This apparent contradiction is known as the “French Paradox”[1]. We used a finite element analysis (FEA) model to investigate the effect of these different cementation philosophies on cement crack propagation and rotational stem stability.

Material and Methods: Based on a CT-scan image of a Charnley-Kerboul plastic stem replica[2], twelve FEA models were created. By decreasing the stem size (4 stems), the average cement mantle thickness increased (1.71–3.77mm). However, the incidence of cement mantle defects (< 1mm) and areas of thin cement (< 2mm) decreased (defects: 34.7–0.0%; thin cement: 40.7–0.0%). The amount of cortical bone support was varied (3 times) between 18.4 and 72.2%. All models were alternately loaded with a cyclic torque load (25.8Nm) and a transversal load (400N) in a ratio of 9:1 for two million cycles. The model predicted fatigue crack formation within the cement and rotational stem stability.

Results: Overall, increasing implant size and increasing the amount of cortical bone support to the cement, improved resistance to accumulated cement damage and rotational stem stability. In both models with undersized stems, more cement cracks and full thickness (FT) cement fractures appeared after less loading cycles than in both models with canal-filling stems. Worst results were obtained with a severely undersized implant surrounded by a thick cement mantle that was poorly supported by cortical bone (first FT crack after < 100 000 cycles, > 220 initiated cracks and 0.6° of implant rotation after 2 million cycles). Best results were obtained with the maximal canal-filling stem surrounded by a thin and deficient cement mantle that was well supported by cortical bone (no FT cracks, < 10 initiated cracks and 0.3° of implant rotation after 2 million cycles).

Conclusion: This study emphasizes the importance of an adequate cementation technique that aims at pressurizing cement up to the cortical bone. This protects the cement mantle against fatigue fracture and stabilises the implant especially if the stem is undersized. From a mechanical point of view, canal-filling stems make sense. They limited the formation of cement cracks and improved rotational stability to the implant. This could explain the excellent results obtained by implants that are cemented line-to-line.