Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32(05): 369-375
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1691836
Original Research
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

A Biomechanical Comparison of Four Hip Arthroplasty Designs in a Canine Model

Nathaniel R. Ordway 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, United States
,
Kristian J. Ash
2   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States
,
Mark A. Miller
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, United States
,
Kenneth A. Mann
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, United States
,
Kei Hayashi
2   Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 August 2018

02 April 2019

Publication Date:
28 May 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to develop an in vitro biomechanical protocol for canine cementless hip arthroplasty that represents physiological gait loading (compression and torsion) and to evaluate if three alternative implant designs improve fixation compared with the traditional collarless, tapered stem in the clinically challenging case of moderate canal flare index.

Study Design Twenty-four (six/group) laboratory-prepared canine constructs were tested using a simulated gait and overload (failure) protocol. Construct stiffness, failure load/displacement and migration were measured as outcome variables.

Results Simulated gait loading did not show any significant differences between implant types for peak displacement, peak rotation, torsional stiffness, subsidence or inducible displacement. The collared and collarless stem groups were stiffer in compression compared with the collarless with a lateral bolt and short-stem groups. Increasing the loading above simulated gait showed significant reductions in compressive and torsional stiffness for all implant constructs. Despite the reductions, the short-stem group showed significantly higher stiffness compared with the other three groups.

Conclusion Peak failure loads (compressive and torsional) in this study were approximately four to seven times the simulated gait loading (430 N, 1.6 Nm) regardless of implant type and highlight the importance of limiting activity level (trotting, jumping) following hip replacement in the postoperative period and during the osseointegration of the implant.

Keywords

hip - arthroplasty - implant fixation - biomechanical performance of implants - gait mechanics - simulated gait loading - dogs

Author Contribution

Nathaniel R. Ordway and Mark A. Miller contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Kristian J. Ash contributed to conception of study and acquisition of data. Kenneth A. Mann contributed to conception of study, study design, and data analysis and interpretation. Kei Hayashi contributed to conception of study. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted manuscript.


 

  • References

  • 1 Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, Mont MA. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 500-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B. Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; ; ( (355) 103-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rashmir-Raven AM, DeYoung DJ, Abrams Jr CF, Aberman HA, Richardson DC. Subsidence of an uncemented canine femoral stem. Vet Surg 1992; 21 (05) 327-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ganz SM, Jackson J, VanEnkevort B. Risk factors for femoral fracture after canine press-fit cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (06) 688-695
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Buks Y, Wendelburg KL, Stover SM, Garcia-Nolen TC. The effects of interlocking a universal hip cementless stem on implant subsidence and mechanical properties of cadaveric canine femora. Vet Surg 2016; 45 (02) 155-164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dosch M, Hayashi K, Garcia TC, Weeren R, Stover SM. Biomechanical evaluation of the helica femoral implant system using traditional and modified techniques. Vet Surg 2013; 42 (07) 867-876
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kidd SW, Preston CA, Moore GE. Complications of porous-coated press-fit cementless total hip replacement in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29 (05) 402-408
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wiebking U, Birkenhauer B, Krettek C, Gösling T. Initial stability of a new uncemented short-stem prosthesis, Spiron®, in dog bone. Technol Health Care 2011; 19 (04) 271-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pozzi A, Peck JN, Chao P, Choate CJ, Barousse D, Conrad B. Mechanical evaluation of adjunctive fixation for prevention of periprosthetic femur fracture with the Zurich cementless total hip prosthesis. Vet Surg 2013; 42 (05) 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Page AE, Allan C, Jasty M, Harrigan TP, Bragdon CR, Harris WH. Determination of loading parameters in the canine hip in vivo. J Biomech 1993; 26 (4–5): 571-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mann KA, Miller MA, Cleary RJ, Janssen D, Verdonschot N. Experimental micromechanics of the cement-bone interface. J Orthop Res 2008; 26 (06) 872-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hall DJ, Urban RM, Pourzal R, Turner TM, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ. Nanoscale surface modification by anodic oxidation increased bone ingrowth and reduced fibrous tissue in the porous coating of titanium-alloy femoral hip arthroplasty implants. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2017; 105 (02) 283-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Palierne S, Asimus E, Mathon D, Meynaud-Collard P, Autefage A. Geometric analysis of the proximal femur in a diverse sample of dogs. Res Vet Sci 2006; 80 (03) 243-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Skurla CP, Pluhar GE, Frankel DJ, Egger EL, James SP. Assessing the dog as a model for human total hip replacement. Analysis of 38 canine cemented femoral components retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (01) 120-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sumner Jr DR, Devlin TC, Winkelman D, Turner TM. The geometry of the adult canine proximal femur. J Orthop Res 1990; 8 (05) 671-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sumner DR, Turner TM, Igloria R, Urban RM, Galante JO. Functional adaptation and ingrowth of bone vary as a function of hip implant stiffness. J Biomech 1998; 31 (10) 909-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Vanderby Jr R, Manley PA, Kohles SS, McBeath AA. Fixation stability of femoral components in a canine hip replacement model. J Orthop Res 1992; 10 (02) 300-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kim JY, Hayashi K, Garcia TC. , et al. Biomechanical evaluation of screw-in femoral implant in cementless total hip system. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (01) 94-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Margalit KA, Hayashi K, Jackson J. , et al. Biomechanical evaluation of acetabular cup implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (07) 818-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liska WD, Doyle ND. Use of an electron beam melting manufactured titanium collared cementless femoral stem to resist subsidence after canine total hip replacement. Vet Surg 2015; 44 (07) 883-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lascelles BD, Freire M, Roe SC, DePuy V, Smith E, Marcellin-Little DJ. Evaluation of functional outcome after BFX total hip replacement using a pressure sensitive walkway. Vet Surg 2010; 39 (01) 71-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fitzpatrick N, Law AY, Bielecki M, Girling S. Cementless total hip replacement in 20 juveniles using BFX™ arthroplasty. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (06) 715-725
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Harper TAM. INNOPLANT total hip replacement system. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2017; 47 (04) 935-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hach V, Delfs G. Initial experience with a newly developed cementless hip endoprosthesis. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2009; 22 (02) 153-158
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Agnello KA, Cimino Brown D, Aoki K, Franklin S, Hayashi K. Risk factors for loosening of cementless threaded femoral implants in canine total hip arthroplasty. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2015; 28 (01) 48-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fischer S, Anders A, Nolte I, Schilling N. Compensatory load redistribution in walking and trotting dogs with hind limb lameness. Vet J 2013; 197 (03) 746-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Volstad N, Nemke B, Muir P. Variance associated with the use of relative velocity for force platform gait analysis in a heterogeneous population of clinically normal dogs. Vet J 2016; 207: 80-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pfau T, Garland de Rivaz A, Brighton S, Weller R. Kinetics of jump landing in agility dogs. Vet J 2011; 190 (02) 278-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar