Biomechanical evaluation of a new femoral stem design for total hip replacement in a canine model

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the biomechanical properties of a novel total hip replacement femoral stem. Methods Eight pairs of femurs from dog cadavers were used. The femurs were separated into different groups. A novel femoral stem with a convex proximal portion (Stem B) was biomechanically evaluated and compared to awell-known veterinary collared stem (Stem A). Femoral stems were inserted into the contralateral femurs from the same dog, forming 16 constructs. A flexo-compression load was applied on the axial axis of each sample. Maximum strength, deflection, stiffness, and energy absorption were analysed. Results Group B constructs showed significantly higher values (p ? 0.05) for the variables, except stiffness. The mean maximum strength was 1,347 ± 357 N for Group A and 1,805 ± 123 N for Group B (p ? 0.0069). The mean deflection was5.54 ± 2.63 mm for Group A and 10.03 ± 3.99 mm for Group B (p ? 0.0056). For the energy variable, the force was 6,203 ± 3,488 N/mm for Group A and 12,885 ± 5,056 N/mm for Group B (p ? 0.0054). Stem B had greater maximum strength, deflection, and energy. Conclusions The new stem was effective in neutralizing the impact of axial flexion-compression stresses during biomechanical tests in cadaveric models.

A meta‐analysis comparing the effects of cemented and uncemented prostheses on wound infection and pain in patients with femoral neck fractures

“…However, there is currently no consensus on the choice of artificial hip joint prosthesis in clinical practice, with the primary focus being on the selection between cemented and uncemented prostheses. Some studies suggest that cemented prostheses can provide better stability and lower incidence of surgical site infections after surgery; however, these may be difficult to revise and may cause arrhythmia, decreased oxygen saturation, hypotension, and other cardiovascular complications during the surgical procedure 7–9 . In contrast, uncemented prostheses have advantages in terms of reduced blood loss and shorter intraoperative time but may exhibit a higher rate of postoperative loosening and poor fixation 10,11 .…”

“…Some studies suggest that cemented prostheses can provide better stability and lower incidence of surgical site infections after surgery; however, these may be difficult to revise and may cause arrhythmia, decreased oxygen saturation, hypotension, and other cardiovascular complications during the surgical procedure. [7][8][9] In contrast, uncemented prostheses have advantages in terms of reduced blood loss and shorter intraoperative time but may exhibit a higher rate of postoperative loosening and poor fixation. 10,11 To further investigate the application of cemented and uncemented artificial hip joint prostheses in femoral neck fractures, this study aimed to compare the differences in surgical site infections, postoperative wound pain, and pressure sore incidence between the two fixation methods.…”