The impact of proximal femoral morphology on failure strength with a mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty is a conservative alternative to conventional total hip replacement and addresses proximal fixation challenges in patients not suitable for hip resurfacing. It is unclear whether proximal femoral morphology impacts the ultimate failure load of mid-head resection implanted femurs, thus the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of native neck-shaft angle (NSA) and coronal implant alignment on proximal femoral strength. In total, 36 synthetic femurs with two different proximal femoral morphologies were utilized in this study. Of them, 18 femurs with a varus NSA of 120° and 18 femurs with a valgus NSA of 135° were each implanted with a mid-head resection prosthesis. Femurs within the two different femoral morphology groups were divided into three equal coronal implant alignment groups: 10° valgus, 10° varus or neutral alignment. Prepared femurs were tested for stiffness and to failure in axial compression. There was no significant difference in stiffness nor failure load between femurs implanted with valgus-, varus- or neutrally aligned implants in femurs with a NSA of 120° (p = 0.396, p = 0.111, respectively). Femurs implanted in valgus orientation were significantly stiffer and failed at significantly higher loads than those implanted in varus alignment in femurs with a NSA of 135° (p = 0.001, p = 0.007, respectively). A mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty seems less sensitive to clinically relevant variations of coronal implant alignment and may be more forgiving upon implantation in some femoral morphologies, however, a relative valgus component alignment is recommended.

Keywords

Mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty biomechanical testing femur

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Daniel

Pradhan

Ziaee

. A clinicoradiologic study of the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection device. Orthopedics 2008; 31 (12 Supp 2).

Itayem

Arndt

Daniel

. A two-year radiostereometric follow-up of the first generation Birmingham Mid Head Resection arthroplasty. Hip Int 2014; 24: 355–362.

McMinn

Pradhan

Ziaee

. Is mid-head resection a durable conservative option in the presence of poor femoral bone quality and distorted anatomy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1589–1597.

Rahman

Muirhead-Allwood

. The Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty – minimum two year clinical and radiological follow-up: an independent single surgeon series. Hip Int 2011; 21: 356–360.

Sandiford

Muirhead-Allwood

Skinner

. Early results of the Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2009; 18: 195–200.

Olsen

Lewis

Waddell

. A biomechanical investigation of implant alignment and femoral neck notching with the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 112–117.

Morison

Olsen

Higgins

. The biomechanical effect of notch size, notch location, and femur orientation on hip resurfacing failure. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2013; 60: 2214–2221.

Olsen

Davis

Waddell

. Imageless computer navigation for placement of the femoral component in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 310–315.

Olsen

Chiu

Gamble

. A comparison of conventional guidewire alignment jigs with imageless computer navigation in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 1834–1841.

10.

Olsen

Davis

Gallie

. The reliability of radiographic assessment of femoral neck-shaft and implant angulation in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 333–340.

11.

Anglin

Masri

Tonetti

. Hip resurfacing femoral neck fracture influenced by valgus placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 465: 71–79.

12.

Davis

Olsen

Zdero

. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing. J Biomech Eng 2009; 131: 041002.

13.

Davis

Olsen

Zdero

. Predictors of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 110–116.

14.

Davis

Olsen

Zdero

. Femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing: the effect of alignment of the femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 1522–1527.

15.

Olsen

Davis

Whyne

. The biomechanical consequence of insufficient femoral component lateralization and exposed cancellous bone in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Biomech Eng 2010; 132: 081011.

16.

Olsen

Sellan

Zdero

. A biomechanical comparison of epiphyseal versus metaphyseal fixed bone-conserving hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(Suppl. 2): 122–127.

17.

Aghayan

Shepherd

Davis

. A biomechanical study of the Birmingham mid head resection arthroplasty: effect of stem size on femoral neck fracture. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2013; 227: 913–918.

18.

Cristofolini

Juszczyk

Taddei

. Assessment of femoral neck fracture risk for a novel proximal epiphyseal hip prosthesis. Clin Biomech 2011; 26: 585–591.

19.

Richards

Giannitsios

Huk

. Risk of periprosthetic femoral neck fracture after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: valgus compared with anatomic alignment. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90(Suppl. 3): 96–101.

20.

Schnurr

Nessler

Meyer

. Is a valgus position of the femoral component in hip resurfacing protective against spontaneous fracture of the femoral neck? A biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 545–551.

21.

Pauwels

. Der Schenkelhalsbruch: Ein mechanisches Problem. Stuttgart: Enke, 1935.

22.

Huiskes

Van Rietbergen

. Biomechanics of bone. In: Mow

Huiskes

(eds) Basic orthopaedic biomechanics and mechano-biology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005, pp.123–179.

23.

Papini

Zdero

Schemitsch

. The biomechanics of human femurs in axial and torsional loading: comparison of finite element analysis, human cadaveric femurs, and synthetic femurs. J Biomech Eng 2007; 129: 12–19.

24.

Cristofolini

Viceconti

Cappello

. Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J Biomech 1996; 29: 525–535.

25.

Bitsakos

Kerner

Fisher

. The effect of muscle loading on the simulation of bone remodelling in the proximal femur. J Biomech 2005; 38: 133–139.

26.

Morlock

Bishop

Ruther

. Biomechanical, morphological, and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine 2006; 220: 333–344.