Periprosthetic femoral bone fractures are frequent complications of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and may occur during the insertion of uncemented Femoral Stems (FS), due to the nature of the press-fit fixation. Such fracture may lead to the surgical failure of the THA and require a revision surgery, which may have dramatic consequences. Therefore, an early detection of intra-operative fractures is important to avoid worsening the fracture and/or to enable a peroperative treatment. The aim of this in vitro study is to determine the sensitivity of a method based on resonance frequency analysis of the bone-stem-ancillary system for periprosthetic fractures detection. A periprosthetic fracture was artificially created close to the lesser-trochanter of 10 femoral bone mimicking phantoms. The bone-stem-ancillary resonance frequencies in the range (2–12) kHz were measured on an ancillary instrumented with piezoelectric sensors, which was fixed to the femoral stem. The measurements were repeated for different fracture lengths from 4 to 55 mm. The results show a decrease of the resonance frequencies due to the fracture occurrence and propagation. The frequency shift reached up to 170 Hz. The minimum fracture length that can be detected varies from mm to mm according to the mode and to the specimen. A significantly higher sensitivity (p = 0.011) was obtained for a resonance frequency around 10.6 kHz, corresponding to a mode vibrating in a plane perpendicular to the fracture. This study opens new paths toward the development of non-invasive vibration-based methods for intra-operative periprosthetic fractures detection.
SinghJAYuSChenL, et al. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020–2040 using the national inpatient sample. J Rheumatol2019; 46(9): 1134–1140.
2.
TroelsenAMalchauESillesenN, et al. A review of current fixation use and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471(7): 2052–2059.
3.
FitzgeraldRHBrindleyGWKavanaghBF. The uncemented total hip arthroplasty: intraoperative femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res1988; 235: 61–66.
4.
SchwartzJTMayerJGEnghCA. Femoral fracture during non-cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Vol1989; 71(8): 1135–1142.
5.
AbdelMPWattsCDHoudekMT, et al. Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J2016; 98-B(4): 461–467.
6.
Sidler-MaierCCWaddellJP. Incidence and predisposing factors of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures: a literature review. Int Orthop2015; 39(9): 1673–1682.
7.
BerryDJ. Epidemiology: hip and knee. Orthop Clin North Am1999; 30(2): 183–190.
8.
MeekRMDGarbuzDSMasriBA, et al. Intraoperative fracture of the femur in revision total hip arthroplasty with a diaphyseal fitting stem. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol2004; 86(3): 480–485.
9.
BerendMESmithAMedingJB, et al. Long-term outcome and risk factors of proximal femoral fracture in uncemented and cemented total hip arthroplasty in 2551 hips. J Arthroplasty2006; 21(6 Suppl 2): 53–59.
10.
MiettinenSSMäkinenTJKostensaloI, et al. Risk factors for intraoperative calcar fracture in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2016; 87(2): 113–119.
11.
LambJNMatharuGSRedmondA, et al. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty. An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Isle of Man. J Arthroplasty2019; 34(12): 3065–3073.e1.
12.
FerbertTJaberAGressN, et al. Impact of intraoperative femoral fractures in primary hip arthroplasty: a comparative study with a mid-term follow-up. Hip Int2020; 30(5): 544–551.
13.
SakaiRKikuchiAMoritaT, et al. Hammering sound frequency analysis and prevention of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2011; 21(6): 718–723.
14.
DuncanCPMasriBA. Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect1995; 44: 293–304.
15.
BradyOHGarbuzDSMasriBA, et al. The reliability and validity of the Vancouver classification of femoral fractures after hip replacement. J Arthroplasty2000; 15(1): 59–62.
16.
RayanFDoddMHaddadFS. European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008; 90(12): 1576–1579.
17.
MondanelliNTroianoEFacchiniA, et al. Treatment algorithm of periprosthetic femoral fracturens. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil2022; 13: 21514593221097608.
FishkinZHanSMZivI. Cerclage wiring technique after proximal femoral fracture in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1999; 14(1): 98–101.
20.
BerendKRLombardiAVJrMalloryTH, et al. Cerclage wires or cables for the management of intraoperative fracture associated with a cementless, tapered femoral prosthesis: results at 2 to 16 years. J Arthroplasty2004; 19(7 Suppl 2): 17–21.
21.
PonzioDYShahiAParkAG, et al. Intraoperative proximal femoral fracture in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30(8): 1418–1422.
22.
TijouARosiGVayronR, et al. Monitoring cementless femoral stem insertion by impact analyses: an in vitro study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2018; 88: 102–108.
23.
DuboryARosiGTijouA, et al. A cadaveric validation of a method based on impact analysis to monitor the femoral stem insertion. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2020; 103: 103535.
24.
Albini LomamiHDamourCRosiG, et al. Ex vivo estimation of cementless femoral stem stability using an instrumented hammer. Clin Biomech2020; 76: 105006.
25.
LannoccaMVariniECappelloA, et al. Intra-operative evaluation of cementless hip implant stability: a prototype device based on vibration analysis. Med Eng Phys2007; 29(8): 886–894.
26.
OberstSBaetzJCampbellG, et al. Vibro-acoustic and nonlinear analysis of cadavric femoral bone impaction in cavity preparations. MATEC Web Conf2018; 148: 14007.
27.
KikuchiSMikamiKNakashimaD, et al. Laser resonance frequency analysis: a novel measurement approach to evaluate acetabular cup stability during surgery. Sensors2019; 19(22): 4876–4888.
28.
PastravLCJaecquesSVJonkersI, et al. In vivo evaluation of a vibration analysis technique for the per-operative monitoring of the fixation of hip prostheses. J Orthop Surg Res2009; 4: 10.
29.
PoudrelASRosiGNguyenVH, et al. Modal analysis of the ancillary during femoral stem insertion: a study on bone mimicking phantoms. Ann Biomed Eng2022; 50(1): 16–28.
30.
GoossensQPastravLRoosenJ, et al. Acoustic analysis to monitor implant seating and early detect fractures in cementless THA: an in vivo study. J Orthop Res2021; 39: 1164–1173.
31.
MorohashiIIwaseHKandaA, et al. Acoustic pattern evaluation during cementless hip arthroplasty surgery may be a new method for predicting complications. Sicot J2017; 3: 13.
32.
WeiJCJCrezeeWHAJongeneelH, et al. Using acoustic vibrations as a method for implant insertion assessment in total hip arthroplasty. Sensors2022; 22: 1609.
33.
WhitwellGBrockettCLYoungS, et al. Spectral analysis of the sound produced during femoral broaching and implant insertion in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2013; 227(2): 175–1880.
34.
LamassoureLGiuntaJRosiG, et al. Anatomical subject validation of an instrumented hammer using machine learning for the classification of osteotomy fracture in rhinoplasty. Med Eng Phys2021; 95: 111–116.
35.
EwinsDJ. Modal testing: theory, practice, and application. No. 10 in Mechanical Engineering Research Studies. 2nd ed.Baldock, Hertfordshire, England; Philadelphia, PA: Research Studies Press, 2000.
36.
PoudrelASNguyenVHRosiG, et al. Influence of the biomechanical environment on the femoral stem insertion and vibrational behavior: a 3-D finite element study. Biomech Model Mechanobiol. Epub ahead of print 21December2022. DOI: 10.1007/s10237-022-01667-1.
37.
BishopNEHöhnJCRothstockS, et al. The influence of bone damage on press-fit mechanics. J Biomech2014; 47(6): 1472–1478.
38.
HenyšPČapekL. Impact force, polar gap and modal parameters predict acetabular cup fixation: a study on a composite bone. Ann Biomed Eng2018; 46(4): 590–604.
39.
PérezMASeral-GarcíaB. A finite element analysis of the vibration behaviour of a cementless hip system. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2013; 16(9): 1022–1031.
40.
HenyšPLeuridanSGoossensQ, et al. Modal frequency and shape curvature as a measure of implant fixation: a computer study on the acetabular cup. Med Eng Phys2018; 60: 30–38.
41.
OvesyMAeschlimannMZyssetPK. Explicit finite element analysis can predict the mechanical response of conical implant press-fit in homogenized trabecular bone. J Biomech2020; 107: 109844.
42.
PandeyAKBiswasMSammanMM. Damage detection from changes in curvature mode shapes. J Sound Vib1991; 145(2): 321–332.
43.
Abdel WahabMMDe RoeckG. Damage detection in bridges using modal curvatures: application to a real damage scenario. J Sound Vib1999; 226(2): 217–235.
44.
GoossensQLeuridanSHenyšP, et al. Development of an acoustic measurement protocol to monitor acetabular implant fixation in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a preliminary study. Med Eng Phys2017; 49: 28–38.
45.
HenysPCapekLFenclJ, et al. Evaluation of acetabular cup initial fixation by using resonance frequency principle. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2015; 229(1): 3–8.
46.
Athanassoulis MakrisGPastravLGoossensQ, et al. Influence of artificial soft tissue on intra-operative vibration analysis method for primary fixation monitoring in cementless total hip arthroplasty. Appl Sci2022; 12: 4027.
47.
LeuridanSGoossensQPastravL, et al. Determination of replicate composite bone material properties using modal analysis. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2017; 66: 12–18.
48.
LamassoureLGiuntaJRosiG, et al. Using an impact hammer to perform biomechanical measurements during osteotomies: study of an animal model. Proc IMechE, Part J2021; 235: 838–845.
