Aim. Biomechanical models of the shoulder have been used to measure forces and glenohumeral pressures. Their results have been found to vary. The aim of this study was to produce a biomechanical model to replicate the biomechanical principles of the glenohumeral joint and to measure the centre of pressure on the glenoid through a mid-range of arm movement with an intact and a compromised rotator cuff. Method. The model consisted of anatomic saw-bones of a scapula and proximal humerus with calibrated extension springs to mimic rotator cuff muscles. Glenoid pressures were measured using pressure sensitive film. The joint was examined through a mid-range of movement with an intact rotator cuff and a supraspinatus deficiency. Results. In the normal cuff model, in neutral, the centre of pressure was in the centre of the glenoid and migrated inferiorly on abduction, rotation and 45° of flexion. The only exception to this was 90° flexion and 35° extension. Concavity compression force rose in internal/external rotation, was steady on flexion/extension but dropped on abduction. In the supraspinatus-deficient model, the centre of pressure dropped to the inferior lip in neutral and rose on any movement with extremes of flexion and abduction, resulting in subacromial impingement. Concavity compression force rose slightly on flexion and extension. On abduction, the force rose as much as three times that of the normal cuff. Discussion. The results suggest that the humeral joint reaction force rests in the centre of the glenoid and is driven inferiorly on arm movement. Loss of supraspinatus reverses this pattern and leads to impingement. These results would be in keeping with osteoarthritic patterns in vivo and may have a bearing on glenoid prosthesis design. Conclusion. The glenohumeral joint demonstrated inferior migration of the humeral reaction force on elevation of the arm. Cuff pathology leads to breakdown of this mechanism

INTRODUCTION. 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. METHODS. 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. RESULTS. As expected, higher cup inclination generally resulted in higher propensity for rim loading. The degree to which this is true, however, is very dependent upon activity. The bent forward, liftweight activity, for example, resulted in relatively less change in center of pressure distance from the apex of the liner (COPtA) with increased inclination. Still other activities, such as Flexion, showed to be more affected by variation in Cup version, Stem Flexion, and Stem Varus/Valgus for a given inclination angle, as shown by larger variation in results. CONCLUSION. This study generally supports acetabular prosthesis inclination angle as an important variable for the study of rim loading in THA. However, it also highlights the importance of including variation in implant placement, as well as loading conditions in such evaluations

Intro. Across much of medicine, activity levels predict life expectancy, with low levels of activity being associated with increased mortality, and higher levels of activity being associated with longer healthier lives. Resurfacing is a technically demanding procedure that has suffered significant fallout from the failure of a couple of poorly performing designs. However strong evidence associates resurfacing with improved life expectancy in both the short and longer term following surgery. We wondered if there was any relationship between the function of hips following surgery and the extent of that surgery. Could a longer stem inside the femur be the reason for a slightly reduced step length? We proposed the nul hypothesis that there was no clinically relevant difference between stem length and gait. Method. After informed consent each subject was allowed a 5 minute acclimatisation period at 4km/hr on the instrumented treadmill (Kistler Gaitway, Amherst, NY). Their gait performance on an increasing incline at 5, 10 and 15%. At all 0.5km incremental intervals of speed, the vertical component of the ground reaction forces, center of pressure and temporal measurements were collected for both limbs with a sampling frequency of 100Hz over 10sec. They were also asked to log onto our JointPRO website and report their function using Oxford, EQ5D, and Imperial scores. Owing to current restrictions in indications, the patient groups selected were not comparable. However, from our database of over 800 patients who have been through the gait lab. 82 subjects were tested from 2 diagnostic groups (29 conventional THR, 27 hip resurfacing) and compared with a slightly younger group of 26 healthy controls. Patients were excluded if less than 12 months postop, or with any other documented joint disease or medical comorbidities which might affect gait performance. Body weight scaling was also applied to the outputted mechanical data to correct for mass differences. All variables for each subject group were compared to each other using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post hoc test with significance set at α=0.05. Results. The experimental groups were reasonably matched for sex, height and BMI, although the controls were rather younger, and the hip replacements rather older (young hip resurfacings were excluded for lack of good controls). Any differences did not reach significance. Oxford hip scores and EQ5D were almost identical for the two experimental groups. The THR group walked 10% slower than control (1.8 (±0.2)m/sec vs 2.0 (±0.1)m/sec). while the HRA group walked 5% faster (2.1(±0.2)m/sec). The difference between THR and control was significant (p<0.05). (See Figure 1). Discussion. This data records a 15% difference in top walking speed between THR and HRA, far exceeding the 5% threshold of clinical relevance. We therefore consider this improved functional outcome to be clinically relevant, and report with increasing confidence that hip resurfacings is an effective intervention in the treatment of hip disease with clinically relevant superiority over THR, even in a group with an average age of 60

Introduction. Financial and human cost effectiveness is an increasing evident outcome measure of surgical innovation. Considering the human element, the aim is to restore the individual to their “normal” state by sparing anatomy without compromising implant performance. Gait lab studies have shown differences between different implants at top walking speed, but none to our knowledge have analysed differing total hip replacement patients through the entire range of gait speed and incline to show differences. The purpose of this gait study was to 1) determine if a new short stem femoral implant would return patients back to normal 2) compare its performance to established hip resurfacing and long stem total hip replacement (THR) implants. Method. 110 subjects were tested on an instrumented treadmill (Kistler Gaitway), 4 groups (short-stem THR, long-stem THR, hip resurfacing and healthy controls) of 28, 29, 27, and 26 respectively. The new short femoral stem patients (Furlong Evolution, JRI) were taken from the ongoing Evolution Hip trial that have been tested on the treadmill minimum 12months postop. The long stem total hip replacements and hip resurfacing groups were identified from our 800+ patient treadmill database, and only included with tests minimum 12 months postop and had no other joint disease or medical comorbidities which would affect gait performance. All subjects were tested through their entire range of gait speeds and incline after having a 5 minute habituation period. Speed were increased 0.5kmh until maximum walking speed achieved and inclines at 4kmh for 5,10,15%. At all incremental intervals of speed 10seconds ere collected, including vertical ground reaction forces (normalized to body mass), center of pressure and temporal measurements were for both limbs (fs=100Hz). Symmetry Index(SI) were calculated on a range of features comparing leg with implanted hip to the contralateral normal hip. Group means for each feature for each subject group were compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey post-hoc test with significance set at α=0.05. Results. The four groups were reasonably matched for demographics and the implant groups for subjective outcome measures (Oxford Score & EQ5D). Hip resurfacing group had a clear top walking speed advantage, but when assessing SI on all speeds and incline, no groups were significantly different (Figure 1-3). Push-off and step length was statistically less favorable for the short/long stemmed THR group (p=0.005–0.05) depending on speed/incline comparing only implanted side. Discussion. The primary aim of this study was to determine if implant design affected gait symmetry and performance. Interestingly, irrespective of implant design, symmetry with regards to weight acceptance, impulse, push-off and step length was returned to normal when comparing to healthy controls. However individual implant performance on the flat and incline, showed inferior (p<0.05) push-off force and step length in the short stem and long stem THR groups when compared to controls. Age and gender may have played a part for the short stem group. It appears that the early gait outcomes for the short stem device are promising. Assessment at the 3-year mark should be conclusive