Stress shielding–induced bone resorption around cementless acetabular components has been indicated as a potential failure mechanism that may threaten long-term fixation. Using a bone remodelling algorithm in combination with three-dimensional finite element models of intact and implanted pelvises and musculoskeletal loading during normal walking, the objectives of the study were to investigate the deviations in load transfer due to implantation and bone adaptation around cementless metallic and ceramic acetabular components. Variations in implant–bone interfacial condition affected strain shielding and bone remodelling; strain shielding was higher for the bonded condition as compared to the debonded condition. For bonded interfacial condition, severe bone resorption, 20%–50% bone density reduction, was observed within the acetabulum. Considering debonded implant–bone interface, bone density increase of 50%–60% was observed around the supero-posterior part of acetabulum, whereas bone density reductions were low (2%–15%) in other locations. The implant–bone interface appeared less likely to fail, post-operatively and after bone remodelling. Moreover, the implant–bone micromotion was found to be low, less than 100 µm. Strain shielding and bone remodelling were almost similar for the metallic and ceramic components. Based on the results of this study, the ceramic acetabular component appeared to be a viable alternative to metal.
HuiskesRWeinansMSvan RietbergenMS. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res1992; 274: 124–134.
6.
WilkinsonJMPeelNFElsonRA. Measuring bone mineral density of the pelvis and proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br2001; 83(2): 283–288.
7.
WrightJMPellicciPMSalvatiEA. Bone density adjacent to press-fit acetabular components: a prospective analysis with quantitative computer tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001; 83(4): 529–536.
8.
MeneghiniRMFordKSMcColloughCH. Bone remodelling around porous metal cementless acetabular component. J Arthroplasty2010; 25(5): 741–747.
9.
LaursenMBNielsenPTSoballeK. Bone remodeling around HA coated acetabular cup. Int Orthop2007; 31(2): 199–204.
10.
MulierMJaecquesSVNRaaijmaakersM. Early periprosthetic bone remodelling around cemented and uncemented custom-made femoral components and their uncemented acetabular cups. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2011; 131(7): 941–948.
11.
WeinansHHuiskesRvan ReitbergenB. Adaptive bone remodelling around bonded noncemented total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between animal experiments and computer simulation. J Orthop Res1993; 11(4): 500–513.
12.
PalBGuptaSNewAMR. A numerical study of failure mechanisms in the cemented resurfaced femur: effects of interface characteristics and bone remodelling. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223(4): 471–484.
13.
SuarezDRWeinansHvan KeulenF. Bone remodelling around a cementless glenoid component. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2012; 11(6): 903–913.
14.
HuiskesRvan RietbergenB. Preclinical testing of total hip stem: the effects of coating placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res1995; 319: 64–76.
15.
Van RietbergenBHuiskesRWeinansH. The mechanism of bone remodelling and resorption around press-fitted THA stems. J Biomech1993; 26: 369–382.
16.
SpearsIRPfleidererMSchneiderE. The effect of interfacial parameters on cup-bone relative micromotions: a finite element investigation. J Biomech2001; 34(1): 113–120.
17.
ThompsonMSNorthmore-BallMDTannerKE. Effect of acetabular resurfacing component material and fixation on the strain distribution in the pelvis. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2002; 216(4): 237–245.
18.
JanssenDZwarteleREDoetsHC. Computational assessment of press-fit acetabular implant fixation: the effect of implant design, interference fit, bone quality, and frictional properties. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2010; 224(1): 65–75.
19.
ZhangQHWangJYLuptonC. A subject-specific pelvic bone model and its application to cemented acetabular replacements. J Biomech2010; 43(14): 2722–2727.
20.
BesongAALeeRFarrarR. Contact mechanics of a novel metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2001; 215(6): 543–548.
21.
WidmerKHZurfluhBMorscherEW. Load transfer and fixation mode of press-fit acetabular sockets. J Arthroplasty2002; 17(7): 926–935.
22.
UdofiaIJYewAJinJM. Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2004; 218(5): 293–305.
23.
OngKLLehmanJNotzWI. Acetabular cup geometry and bone-implant interface have more influence on initial periprosthetic joint space than joint loading and surgical cup insertion. J Biomech Eng2006; 128(2): 169–175.
24.
LevenstonMEBeaupreGSSchurmanDJ. Computer simulations of stress-related bone remodeling around noncemented acetabular components. J Arthroplasty1993; 8(6): 595–605.
25.
ManleyMTOngKLKurtzSM. The potential for bone loss in acetabular structures following THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 453: 246–253.
26.
DalstraMHuiskesR. Load transfer across the pelvis bone. J Biomech1995; 28(6): 715–724.
27.
VargheseBShortDPenmetsaR. Computer-tomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurate capture strain response to bending and torsion. J Biomech2011; 44(7): 1374–1379.
28.
ZiouposPCookRBHutchinsonJR. Some basic relationships between density values in cancellous and cortical bone. J Biomech2008; 41(9): 1961–1968.
29.
AndersonAEPetersCLTuttleBD. Subject-specific finite element model of the pelvis: development, validation, sensitive studies. J Biomech Eng2005; 127(3): 364–373.
30.
LeungASOGordonLMSkrinskasT. Effects of bone density alterations on strain patterns in the pelvis: application of a finite element model. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2009; 223(8): 965–976.
31.
TaddeiFPancantiAVicecontiM. An improved method for the automatic mapping of computed tomography numbers onto finite element models. Med Eng Phys2004; 26(1): 61–69.
32.
DalstraMHuiskesROdgaardA. Mechanical and textural properties of pelvic trabecular bone. J Biomech1993; 26: 523–535.
33.
KempsonG. The mechanical properties of articular cartilage. In: SokoloffL (ed.) The joint and synovial fluid, ch. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1980, pp.385–409.
34.
LiuFUdofiaIJJinJM. Comparison of contact mechanics between a total hip replacement and hip resurfacing with a metal-on-metal articulation. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2005; 219: 727–732.
35.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerM. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001; 34(7): 859–871.
36.
DostalWFAndrewsJG. A three-dimensional biomechanical model of hip musculature. J Biomech1981; 14(11): 803–812.
37.
MartinRB. Effects of geometric feedback in development of osteoporosis. J Biomech1972; 5(5): 447–455.
38.
MartinRB. Porosity and specific surface of bone. Crit Rev Biomed Eng1984; 10(3): 179–222.
39.
HoffmanO. The brittle strength of orthotropic material. J Compos Mater1967; 1: 200–206.
GhoshRGuptaSDickinsonA. Experimental validation of finite element models of intact and implanted composite hemi-pelvises using digital image correlation. J Biomech Eng2012; 134(8): 081003-1–081003-9.
43.
GhoshRGuptaSDickinsonA. Experimental validation of numerically predicted strain and micromotion in intact and implanted composite hemi-pelvises. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine. 2013; 227(2): 162–174. DOI: 10.1177/0954411912461238>.
44.
MorganEFKeavenyTM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech2001; 34(5): 569–577.
45.
VerhulpEvan RietbergenBMullerR. Indirect determination of trabecular bone effective tissue failure properties using micro-finite element simulations. J Biomech2008; 41(7): 1479–1485.
46.
DavisETOlsenMZderoR. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng2009; 131(4): 041002-1–041002-8.
47.
DickinsonASTaylorACBrowneM. The influence of acetabular cup material on pelvis cortex surface strains, measured using digital image correlation. J Biomech2012; 45(4): 719–723.
48.
TaralaMWaandersDBiemondJE. The effect of bone ingrowth depth on the tensile and shear strength of the implant-bone e-beam produced interface. J Mater Sci Mater Med2011; 22: 2339–2346.
49.
LiuXNieburGL. Bone ingrowth into a porous coated implant predicted by a mechano-regulatory tissue differentiation algorithm. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2008; 7: 335–344.
