Turan Cihan DÜLGEROĞLU, Nihat Demirhan DEMİRKIRAN, Mehmet ERDURAN

Long anatomical femoral stem reduces stress concentrations on femurs with lateral bowing deformity: A finite element analysis

Aim: Femoral morphology varies widely among different ages and sexes. Lateral bowing is a variance of the femur described in elderly females from Asian race. This bowing deformity is usually underestimated in patient evaluation and planning the most suitable treatment. In this study we aimed to evaluate the stress distribution around femoral prosthesis in femurs with lateral bowing deformity, using a finite-element (FE) method. The main objective of our study was to compare stress concentrations around five different stem models.Material and Methods: A lateral femoral bowing deformity model was obtained from the post-operative CT data of a 69-year-old woman, using a software (3D-Slicer). Straight and anatomical femoral stem models with different lengths are designed on the model of von Mises stress concentrations of five different stem models are evaluated.Results: The long anatomic stem did not lead to excessive stress concentrations on any area of the femur and a uniform stress distribution was obtained. The maximum von Mises stress for long anatomical stem (29,197 MPa) was lower than any other model. Highest stress concentrations were observed in medium straight stems (43,147 MPa).Conclusion: For patients with a lateral bowing deformity, longer anatomical femoral stems may overcome the excessive stress shielding, providing stress distribution over a wider region of the femur.

PDF

___

1. Wilcock GK. Economic aspects of the demand for total hip replacement in the elderly. Age Ageing 1978;8:32-5.
2. Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, et al. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;85:27-32.
3. Mahomed N, Katz JN. Revision total hip arthroplasty: indications and outcomes. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:1939-50.
4. Della Rocca GJ, Leung KS, Pape HC. Periprosthetic fractures: epidemiology and future projections. J Orthop Trauma 2011;25:66-S70.
5. Berry DJ. Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am. 1999;30:183-90.
6. Franklin J, Henrik M. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury 2007;38:655-60.
7. Götze C, Steens W, Vieth V, et al. Primary stability in cementless femoral stems:custom-made versus conventional femoral prosthesis. Clin Biomech ((Bristol, Avon) 2002;17:267-73.
8. Casper DS, Kim GK, Parvizi J, et al. Morphology of the proximal femur differs widely with age and sex: relevance to design and selection of femoral prostheses. J Orthop Res. 2012;30:1162-6.
9. Oh Y, Wakabayashi Y, Kurosa Y, et al. Potential pathogenic mechanism for stress fractures of the bowed femoral shaft in the elderly: mechanical analysis by the CT-based finite element method. Injury 2014;45:1764-71.
10. Pieper S, Halle M, Kikinis R, 3D Slicer. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Biomedical Imaging; April 15-18,2004; Arlington, Virginia, USA. p. 632-5.
11. Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, Heller M, et al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 2001;34:859-71.
12. Mullaji AB, Marawar SV, Mittal V. A comparison of coronal plane axial femoral relationships in Asian patients with varus osteoarthritic knees and healthy knees. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:861-7.
13. Heller MO, Bergmann G, Kassi JP, et al. Determinationof muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing. Biomech 2005;38:1155-63.
14. Heller MO, Bergmann G, Deuretzbacher G, et al.Musculo-skeletal loading conditions at the hip during walking and stair climbing. J Biomech 2001;34:883-93.
15. Wirtz DC, Schieffers N, Pandorf T, et al. Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic Fesimulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech 2000;33:1325-30.
16. San Antonio T, Ciaccia M, Müller-Karger C, et al. Orientation of orthotropic material properties in a femur FE model: a method based on the principal stresses directions. Med Eng Phy 2012;34:914-9.
17. Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R, et al. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012;27:158-64.
18. Korkmaz MF, Sevimli R. Total Hip Artroplasty. J Clin Anal Med 2015;6:
19. Feyen H, Shimmin AJ. Is the length of the femoral component important in primary total hip replacement? Bone Joint J 2014;96:442-8.