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. 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.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic hip fractures (PPFs) after total hip arthroplasty are difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to identify modifiable risk factors such as stem selection to reduce the occurrence of PPFs. This study aimed to clarify differences in fracture torque, surface strain, and fracture type analysis between three different types of cemented stems. We conducted biomechanical testing of bone analogues using six cemented stems of three different types: collarless polished tapered (CPT) stem, Versys Advocate (Versys) stem, and Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) stem. Experienced surgeons implanted each of these types of stems into six bone analogues, and the analogues were compressed and internally rotated until failure. Torque to fracture and fracture type were recorded. We also measured surface strain distribution using triaxial rosettes.Aims
Methods
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients report exacerbation of hip pain in deep flexion. However, the exact impingement location in deep flexion is unknown. The aim was to investigate impingement-free maximal flexion, impingement location, and if cam deformity causes hip impingement in flexion in FAI patients. A retrospective study involving 24 patients (37 hips) with FAI and femoral retroversion (femoral version (FV) < 5° per Murphy method) was performed. All patients were symptomatic (mean age 28 years (SD 9)) and had anterior hip/groin pain and a positive anterior impingement test. Cam- and pincer-type subgroups were analyzed. Patients were compared to an asymptomatic control group (26 hips). All patients underwent pelvic CT scans to generate personalized CT-based 3D models and validated software for patient-specific impingement simulation (equidistant method).Aims
Methods
The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants. We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method.Aims
Methods
