Aims. Periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are two of the major reasons for revision surgery of cementless implants. Optimal implant fixation with minimal bone damage is challenging in this procedure. This pilot study investigates whether vibratory implant insertion is gentler compared to consecutive single blows for acetabular component implantation in a surrogate polyurethane (PU) model. Methods. Acetabular components (cups) were implanted into 1 mm nominal under-sized cavities in PU foams (15 and 30 per cubic foot (PCF)) using a vibratory implant insertion device and an automated impaction device for single blows. The impaction force, remaining polar gap, and lever-out moment were measured and compared between the impaction methods. Results. Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam. Conclusion. Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(6):272–278

Aims

Cementless acetabular components rely on press-fit fixation for initial stability. In certain cases, initial stability is more difficult to obtain (such as during revision). No current study evaluates how a surgeon’s impaction technique (mallet mass, mallet velocity, and number of strikes) may affect component fixation. This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1) how does impaction technique affect a) bone strain generation and deterioration (and hence implant stability) and b) seating in different density bones?; and 2) can an impaction technique be recommended to minimize risk of implant loosening while ensuring seating of the acetabular component?