Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 7 | Pages 386 - 393
1 Jul 2020
Doyle R van Arkel RJ Muirhead-Allwood S Jeffers JRT

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?. Methods. A custom drop tower was used to simulate surgical strikes seating acetabular components into synthetic bone. Strike velocity and drop mass were varied. Synthetic bone strain was measured using strain gauges and stability was assessed via push-out tests. Polar gap was measured using optical trackers. Results. A phenomenon of strain deterioration was identified if an excessive number of strikes was used to seat a component. This effect was most pronounced in low-density bone at high strike velocities. Polar gap was reduced with increasing strike mass and velocity. Conclusion. A high mallet mass with low strike velocity resulted in satisfactory implant stability and polar gap, while minimizing the risk of losing stability due to over-striking. Extreme caution not to over-strike must be exercised when using high velocity strikes in low-density bone for any mallet mass. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):386–393


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 13, Issue 6 | Pages 272 - 278
5 Jun 2024
Niki Y Huber G Behzadi K Morlock MM

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.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 9, Issue 7 | Pages 360 - 367
1 Jul 2020
Kawahara S Hara T Sato T Kitade K Shimoto T Nakamura T Mawatari T Higaki H Nakashima Y

Aims

Appropriate acetabular component placement has been proposed for prevention of postoperative dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Manual placements often cause outliers in spite of attempts to insert the component within the intended safe zone; therefore, some surgeons routinely evaluate intraoperative pelvic radiographs to exclude excessive acetabular component malposition. However, their evaluation is often ambiguous in case of the tilted or rotated pelvic position. The purpose of this study was to develop the computational analysis to digitalize the acetabular component orientation regardless of the pelvic tilt or rotation.

Methods

Intraoperative pelvic radiographs of 50 patients who underwent THA were collected retrospectively. The 3D pelvic bone model and the acetabular component were image-matched to the intraoperative pelvic radiograph. The radiological anteversion (RA) and radiological inclination (RI) of the acetabular component were calculated and those measurement errors from the postoperative CT data were compared relative to those of the 2D measurements. In addition, the intra- and interobserver differences of the image-matching analysis were evaluated.