Background: Resurfacing hip arthroplasty has re-emerged as an option in total hip arthroplasty and by 2008 these prostheses constituted 7.8% of the total number of primary hip replacements in Australia. In the Scandinavian countries the use of resurfacing prostheses is substantially less, reported from 0.6–2.8% in the different national arthroplasty registries. The resurfacing implant preserves proximal bone stock and is expected to retain a physiological load transfer in the proximal femur. Mid-term results for the resurfacing implants are promising, but periprosthetic neck fractures remains the most frequent complication. Finite element analyses have suggested increased strains in the femoral neck area after resurfacing arthroplasty. This has not yet been proved in a cadaver model.
Purpose: This study compared the strain pattern of the femoral neck and the proximal femur in cadaver femurs before and after insertion of a resurfacing femoral component.
Material and method: When load transfers trough the hip joint to the femur, the bone undergoes a deformation, which can be measured by strain gauges. In this study, ten strain gauge rosettes were distributed on the femoral neck and proximal femur of thirteen human cadaver femurs. The femurs were loaded in a hip simulator for single leg stance and stair climbing. Cortical strains were measured on the femoral neck and proximal femur before and after implantation of a resurfacing femoral component (DePuy ASRTM).
Results: After resurfacing the mean tensile strain increased by 15 % (CI: 6 – 24%, p=0.003) on the lateral femoral neck, and mean compressive strain increased by 11 % (CI: 5 – 17%, p=0.002) on the medial femoral neck during single leg stance simulation. On the anterior side of the femoral neck the strain increased up to 16%, however this difference was not found statistically significant. On the proximal femur the deformation pattern remained similar to the strains measured on the unoperated femurs.
Discussion: Both patient related factors such as female gender, obesity and high age, and surgical factors such as notching, lack of seating and varus-orientation of the implant have been associated with increased risk of neck fracture after resurfacing arthroplasty. We asked ourselves if there could be a biomechanical factor contributing to the risk of periprosthetic fracture. The small increase of strains in the neck area would probably not alone be sufficient to cause a neck fracture. Acting together with patient-specific and surgical factors it may however contribute to the risk of early periprosthetic fracture.
