BackgroundThe influence of THA stem design on periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) risk is subject of debate. This study aims to compare the effects of different cementless stem designs on stress-strain distributions in both physiological and osteoporotic femur under various loading conditions.MaterialsA biomechanical study using finite-element analysis was conducted. Four models were developed: three with implanted femurs and a native one chosen as control. Each model was analyzed for both healthy and osteoporotic bone. The following stem designs were examined: short anatomical stem with femoral neck preservation, double-wedge stem, and anatomical standard stem. Three loading conditions were assessed: gait, sideways falling, and four-point bending.ResultsDuring gait in physiological bone, the anatomical stem and the short anatomical stem with femoral neck preservation showed stress distribution similar to the native model. The double-wedge stem reduced stress in the proximal area but concentrated it in the meta-diaphysis. In osteoporotic bone, the double-wedge stem design increased average stress by up to 10%. During sideways falling, the double-wedge stem exhibited higher stresses in osteoporotic bone. No significant differences in average stress were found in any of the studied models during four-point bending.ConclusionIn physiological bone, anatomical stems demonstrated stress distribution comparable to the native model. The double-wedge stem showed uneven stress distribution, which may contribute to long-term stress shielding. In the case of osteoporotic bone, the double-wedge stem design resulted in a significant increase in average stress during both gait and sideways falling, potentially indicating a higher theoretical risk of PFF.

Biomechanical analysis of different THA cementless femoral stem designs in physiological and osteoporotic bone during static loading conditions

Formica, Matteo;Zanirato, Andrea;Revetria, Tullio Andrea;
2024-01-01

Abstract

BackgroundThe influence of THA stem design on periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) risk is subject of debate. This study aims to compare the effects of different cementless stem designs on stress-strain distributions in both physiological and osteoporotic femur under various loading conditions.MaterialsA biomechanical study using finite-element analysis was conducted. Four models were developed: three with implanted femurs and a native one chosen as control. Each model was analyzed for both healthy and osteoporotic bone. The following stem designs were examined: short anatomical stem with femoral neck preservation, double-wedge stem, and anatomical standard stem. Three loading conditions were assessed: gait, sideways falling, and four-point bending.ResultsDuring gait in physiological bone, the anatomical stem and the short anatomical stem with femoral neck preservation showed stress distribution similar to the native model. The double-wedge stem reduced stress in the proximal area but concentrated it in the meta-diaphysis. In osteoporotic bone, the double-wedge stem design increased average stress by up to 10%. During sideways falling, the double-wedge stem exhibited higher stresses in osteoporotic bone. No significant differences in average stress were found in any of the studied models during four-point bending.ConclusionIn physiological bone, anatomical stems demonstrated stress distribution comparable to the native model. The double-wedge stem showed uneven stress distribution, which may contribute to long-term stress shielding. In the case of osteoporotic bone, the double-wedge stem design resulted in a significant increase in average stress during both gait and sideways falling, potentially indicating a higher theoretical risk of PFF.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11567/1174938
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact