Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 7 | Pages 485 - 493
1 Jul 2018
Numata Y Kaneuji A Kerboull L Takahashi E Ichiseki T Fukui K Tsujioka J Kawahara N

Objective

Cement thickness of at least 2 mm is generally associated with more favorable results for the femoral component in cemented hip arthroplasty. However, French-designed stems have shown favorable outcomes even with thin cement mantle. The biomechanical behaviors of a French stem, Charnley-Marcel-Kerboull (CMK) and cement were researched in this study.

Methods

Six polished CMK stems were implanted into a composite femur, and one million times dynamic loading tests were performed. Stem subsidence and the compressive force at the bone-cement interface were measured. Tantalum ball (ball) migration in the cement was analyzed by micro CT


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 6 | Pages 379 - 387
1 Jun 2018
Hansen L De Raedt S Jørgensen PB Mygind-Klavsen B Kaptein B Stilling M

Objectives. To validate the precision of digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and the model-based method (MBM) RSA with respect to benchmark marker-based (MM) RSA for evaluation of kinematics in the native hip joint. Methods. Seven human cadaveric hemipelves were CT scanned and bone models were segmented. Tantalum beads were placed in the pelvis and proximal femoral bone. RSA recordings of the hips were performed during flexion, adduction and internal rotation. Stereoradiographic recordings were all analyzed with DRR, MBM and MM. Migration results for the MBM and DRR with respect to MM were compared. Precision was assessed as systematic bias (mean difference) and random variation (Pitman’s test for equal variance). Results. A total of 288 dynamic RSA images were analyzed. Systematic bias for DRR and MBM with respect to MM in translations (p < 0.018 mm) and rotations (p < 0.009°) were approximately 0. Pitman’s test showed lower random variation in all degrees of freedom for DRR compared with MBM (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Systematic error was approximately 0 for both DRR or MBM. However, precision of DRR was statistically significantly better than MBM. Since DRR does not require marker insertion it can be used for investigation of preoperative hip kinematics in comparison with the postoperative results after joint preserving hip surgery. . Cite this article: L. Hansen, S. De Raedt, P. B. Jørgensen, B. Mygind-Klavsen, B. Kaptein, M. Stilling. Marker free model-based radiostereometric analysis for evaluation of hip joint kinematics: A validation study. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:379–387. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.76.BJR-2017-0268.R1