Biomechanical Comparison of Impaction Techniques and Cross-Sectional Femoral Stem Shapes for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Kansas journal of medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.17161/kjm.vol17.21522
Vanessa R Richardson, Alexander C M Chong, Anthony N Brown
{"title":"Biomechanical Comparison of Impaction Techniques and Cross-Sectional Femoral Stem Shapes for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty.","authors":"Vanessa R Richardson, Alexander C M Chong, Anthony N Brown","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol17.21522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traditional mallet broaching and stem seating in cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in femoral stem misalignment, potentially reducing implant longevity. This study aimed to compare the pullout strength of cementless THA femoral stems with different cross-sectional designs achieved through the powered impactor method versus the traditional mallet method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors utilized 24 polyurethane foam femurs and two femoral bone preservation stems with different proximal cross-sectional shapes (double taper: ACTIS<sup>®</sup>, size 5; flat taper: TRI-LOCK<sup>®</sup>, size 5). A single orthopedic surgeon broached each femur from size 0 to size 5 using either the powered impactor or mallet impaction methods. Broaching time and component implantation times were recorded. A load-to-failure pullout strength test was conducted, and the ultimate pullout load was recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The broaching time for the TRI-LOCK<sup>®</sup> stem showed a statistically significant difference between the two impaction methods (powered: 37±7 seconds, mallet: 75±29 seconds, F[3, 20] = 4.56, p = 0.002), but no statistically significant difference was detected for the ACTIS<sup>®</sup> stem between the two impaction methods (powered: 47±22 seconds, mallet: 59±9 seconds, F[3, 20] = 4.56, p = 0.304). There was a statistically significant difference in pullout strength between the two impaction groups, and this strength was influenced by the implant cross-sectional shape (ACTIS<sup>®</sup>: 774±75N versus 679±22N, F(3,20) = 16.38, p = 0.018; TRI-LOCK<sup>®</sup>: 616±57N versus 859±85N, F(3, 20) = 16.38, p <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The technique used for femoral bone preparation (powered impactor versus mallet) and the cross-sectional design of the cementless femoral stem are crucial factors that affect initial stem stability and operation time.</p>","PeriodicalId":94121,"journal":{"name":"Kansas journal of medicine","volume":"17 ","pages":"30-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11060782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol17.21522","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Traditional mallet broaching and stem seating in cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) can result in femoral stem misalignment, potentially reducing implant longevity. This study aimed to compare the pullout strength of cementless THA femoral stems with different cross-sectional designs achieved through the powered impactor method versus the traditional mallet method.

Methods: The authors utilized 24 polyurethane foam femurs and two femoral bone preservation stems with different proximal cross-sectional shapes (double taper: ACTIS®, size 5; flat taper: TRI-LOCK®, size 5). A single orthopedic surgeon broached each femur from size 0 to size 5 using either the powered impactor or mallet impaction methods. Broaching time and component implantation times were recorded. A load-to-failure pullout strength test was conducted, and the ultimate pullout load was recorded.

Results: The broaching time for the TRI-LOCK® stem showed a statistically significant difference between the two impaction methods (powered: 37±7 seconds, mallet: 75±29 seconds, F[3, 20] = 4.56, p = 0.002), but no statistically significant difference was detected for the ACTIS® stem between the two impaction methods (powered: 47±22 seconds, mallet: 59±9 seconds, F[3, 20] = 4.56, p = 0.304). There was a statistically significant difference in pullout strength between the two impaction groups, and this strength was influenced by the implant cross-sectional shape (ACTIS®: 774±75N versus 679±22N, F(3,20) = 16.38, p = 0.018; TRI-LOCK®: 616±57N versus 859±85N, F(3, 20) = 16.38, p <0.001).

Conclusions: The technique used for femoral bone preparation (powered impactor versus mallet) and the cross-sectional design of the cementless femoral stem are crucial factors that affect initial stem stability and operation time.

无骨全髋关节置换术中植入技术和股骨柄截面形状的生物力学比较
简介:在无骨水泥全髋关节置换术(THA)中,传统的槌式拉床和股骨柄就位会导致股骨柄错位,从而可能缩短植入物的使用寿命。本研究旨在比较不同截面设计的无骨水泥全髋关节置换术股骨柄通过动力冲击器法与传统木槌法获得的拔出强度:作者使用了 24 个聚氨酯泡沫股骨和两个具有不同近端横截面形状的股骨头保留柄(双锥度:ACTIS®,5 号;平锥度:TRI-LOCK®,5 号)。一名骨科医生使用动力冲击器或锤击法对每根股骨从 0 号到 5 号进行拉削。记录拉削时间和组件植入时间。进行了加载至破坏拉拔强度测试,并记录了极限拉拔载荷:TRI-LOCK®骨干的拉削时间在两种植入方法之间有显著统计学差异(动力法:37±7秒,槌法:75±29秒,F[3,20] = 4.56,P = 0.002),但ACTIS®骨干的拉削时间在两种植入方法之间无显著统计学差异(动力法:47±22秒,槌法:59±9秒,F[3,20] = 4.56,P = 0.304)。两组种植体的拔出强度有显著的统计学差异,拔出强度受种植体横截面形状的影响(ACTIS®:774±75N 对 679±22N,F[3,20] = 16.38,p = 0.018;TRI-LOCK®:616±57N 对 859±85N,F[3,20] = 16.38,p):股骨头制备技术(动力冲击器与木槌)和无骨水泥股骨柄横截面设计是影响柄初始稳定性和手术时间的关键因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信