Yasaman Niki, Gerd Huber, Kambiz Behzadi, Michael M Morlock
{"title":"与单击技术相比,振动插入压配髋臼组件所需的力量更小。","authors":"Yasaman Niki, Gerd Huber, Kambiz Behzadi, Michael M Morlock","doi":"10.1302/2046-3758.136.BJR-2023-0263.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":9074,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Research","volume":"13 6","pages":"272-278"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150042/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vibratory insertion of press-fit acetabular components requires less force than a single blow technique.\",\"authors\":\"Yasaman Niki, Gerd Huber, Kambiz Behzadi, Michael M Morlock\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/2046-3758.136.BJR-2023-0263.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Research\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"272-278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150042/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.136.BJR-2023-0263.R1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.136.BJR-2023-0263.R1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vibratory insertion of press-fit acetabular components requires less force than a single blow technique.
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.
Results: Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam.
Conclusion: Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study.