Mechanical stability of porous-coated acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty

Stiehl, James B.; MacMillan, Eric; Skrade, David A.

doi:10.1016/s0883-5403(06)80179-8

Cited by 66 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With Paprosky defect type 3b, an implantation without reconstructive measures is no longer recommended. [20] 2354 N Plastic pelvis Average value: Without screws: 35 -153 μ m With screws: 82 -266 μ m Won et al 1995 [28] 1500 N Human bone, frozen fl esh Average value: 10 -51 μ m Maximum: 180 μ m Perona et al 1992 [19] 2354 N Human bone preserved in formalin 162 μ m measured at the os ilium Stiehl et al 1991 [24] 1000 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary stability of cementless threaded acetabular cups at first implantation and in the case of revision regarding micromotions as indicators

Bürkner

Fottner

Lichtinger

et al. 2012

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary stability of cementless threaded acetabular cups at first implantation and in the case of revision regarding micromotions as indicators

Bürkner

Fottner

Lichtinger

et al. 2012

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Screws not only add very little to the primary stability of press-fit cups (51,52,53), they prohibit the settling process of a non-cemented cup. Some degree of migration must be accepted -at least in revisions (54,55).…”

Section: Principles Of Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failures and Successes in Total HIP Replacement-Why Good Ideas May Not Work

2003

Scand J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The course of development of total hip replacement (THR) is neither harmonious nor linear. Progress and set-backs alternate. Progress in THR manifests itself through reductions in the number and the severity of complications (infection, aseptic loosening, prematurely worn components, etc.).Innovation is the motor of progress. However, today's innovation may well be tomorrow's revision! Progress has been achieved in part through new implant materials and designs that provide improvements in such things as stress distribution in surrounding bone, tissue compatibility and osseointegration, and resistance to both wear and cyclic fatigue. Of at least equal importance, however, are improvements achieved in operative procedures (e.g., cementing technique) and finally, in clinical quality control: more complete documentation of implant and patient variables, establishment of implant registers, and utilization of outcome studies to guide the course of further development.Causes of failure in THR are numerous. However, unexpected side effects of innovations are the most frequent cause. An innovation may solve one problem, but also creates new ones. Problems in innovation which can lead to failures include: over-generalization of expected patient responses, ignoring past experience or assigning wrong causes to encountered problems, and finally, ignoring the dynamic nature of the living system (which can be described as using "necro-" instead of biomechanical thinking).Quality control in both manufacturing and clinical practice has to be improved. The pioneer times have come to an end. Today's patients should have the right to be operated on by a well trained surgeon and to be provided with well tested, well-understood implant materials and devices.Progress in endoprosthetics has led to the present high level of clinical success. Paradoxically, however, success is the greatest obstacle to further progress. This is because the curve of progress as a result of effort expended has turned asymptotic in endoprosthetics, as it does in many endeavors. In such situations the more a product (e.g., surgical implant and procedure, automobile design, computer program) becomes successful, the more efforts (and finances) are needed for further progress. On the other hand, the "scissors"

show abstract

“…Concerns exist about incomplete seating leading to reduced bony ingrowth and acetabular failure [12]. Recommendations for the size of underream in acetabular press-fit fixation range from 1 to 3 mm [1,3,15,16,24]. A 2-mm underream has been recommended for use in Birmingham Hip TM Resurfacing (BHR TM ; Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN, USA) [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A 2-mm underream has been recommended for use in Birmingham Hip TM Resurfacing (BHR TM ; Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN, USA) [21]. While a 2-mm underream reportedly increases the torque-out force required in implanted press-fit acetabular cups [8], several authors have suggested an undersized reamed cavity of less than 2 mm may provide adequate press-fit fixation, while reducing the risk of acetabular fracture during impaction [1,16,24]. Currently, the ideal underream for uncemented, press-fit acetabular fixation is uncertain and little is known about the effect of underream size and the incidence of incomplete acetabular component seating in hip resurfacing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Worry About Periacetabular Interference Gaps in Hip Resurfacing?

Gomes

Olsen

Donnelly

et al. 2013

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Press-fit acetabular component seating in hip resurfacing can be challenging as a strong interference fit is required. It has not been established whether reducing the acetabular underream minimizes incomplete component seating or leads to increased acetabular loosening. Questions/purposes We examined (1) the incidence and natural history of postoperative interference gaps in hip resurfacing and (2) whether reduction of the acetabular underream from 2 mm to 1 mm reduces the incidence of periacetabular interference gaps.

show abstract

Mechanical stability of porous-coated acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty

Cited by 66 publications

References 10 publications

Primary stability of cementless threaded acetabular cups at first implantation and in the case of revision regarding micromotions as indicators

Primary stability of cementless threaded acetabular cups at first implantation and in the case of revision regarding micromotions as indicators

Failures and Successes in Total HIP Replacement-Why Good Ideas May Not Work

Should We Worry About Periacetabular Interference Gaps in Hip Resurfacing?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About