Abstract
Although resurfacing hip replacement (RHR) is associated with a more demanding patient cohort, it has achieved survivorship approaching that of total hip replacement. Occasional failures from femoral neck fracture, or migration and loosening of the femoral head prosthesis have been observed, the causes of which are multifactorial, but predominately biomechanical in nature. Current surgical technique recommends valgus implant orientation and reduction of the femoral offset, reducing joint contact force and the femoral neck fracture risk. Radiographic changes including femoral neck narrowing and ‘pedestal lines’ around the implant stem are present in well performing hips, but more common in failing joints indicating that loosening may involve remodelling. The importance of prosthesis positioning on the biomechanics of the resurfaced joint was investigated using finite element analysis (FEA).
Seven FE models were generated from a CT scan of a male patient: the femur in its intact state, and the resurfaced femur with either a 50mm or 52mm prosthesis head in
-
neutral orientation,
-
10° of relative varus or
-
10° of relative valgus tilt.
The fracture risk during trauma was investigated for stumbling and a sideways fall onto the greater trochanter, by calculating the volume of yielding bone. Remodelling was quantified for normal gait, as the percentage volume of head and neck bone with over 75% post-operative change in strain energy density for an older patient, and 50% for a younger patient.
Resurfacing with the smaller, 50mm prosthesis reduced the femoral offset by 3.0mm, 4.3mm and 5.1mm in varus, neutral and valgus orientations. When the 52mm head was used, the natural joint centre could be recreated rrespective of orientation, without notching the femoral neck. The 50mm head reduced the volume of yielding femoral neck bone relative to the intact femur in a linear correlation with femoral offset. When the natural femoral offset was recreated with the 52mm prosthesis, the predicted neck fracture load in stumbling was decreased by 9% and 20% in neutral and varus orientations, but remained in line with the intact bone when implanted with valgus orientation. This agrees with clinical experience and justifies currently recommended techniques. In oblique falling, the neck fracture load was again improved slightly when the femoral offset was reduced, and never fell below 97% of the natural case for the larger implant in all orientations.
Predicted patterns of remodelling stimulus were consistent with radiographic clinical evidence. Stress shielding increased slightly from varus to valgus orientation, but was restricted to the superior femoral head in the older patient. Bone densification around the stem was predicted, indicating load transfer. Stress shielding only extended into the femoral neck in the young patient and where the femoral offset was reduced with the 50mm prosthesis. The increase in remodelling correlated with valgus orientation, or reduced femoral offset. The trend would become more marked if this were to reduce the joint contact force, but there was no such correlation for the 52mm prosthesis, when the natural femoral offset was recreated. Only in extreme cases would remodelling alone be sufficient to cause visible femoral neck narrowing, i.e. patients with a high metabolism and considerably reduced femoral offset, implying that other factors including damage from surgery or impingement, inflammatory response or retinacular blood supply interruption may also be involved in femoral neck adaptation.
The results of this FEA biomechanical study justify current surgical techniques, indicating improved femoral neck fracture strength in stumbling with valgus position. Fracture risk under oblique falling was less sensitive to resurfacing. Furthermore, the results imply that reduced femoral offset could be linked to narrowing of the femoral neck; however the effects of positioning alone on bone remodelling may be insufficient to account for this. The study suggests that surgical technique should attempt to recreate the natural head centre, but still aim primarily for valgus positioning of the prosthesis, to reduce the femoral neck fracture risk.
Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net
