Highlights
- •Initial stability of Contour cup is achieved by bone allograft and flange screws.
- •Transacetabular screw could not improve initial stability.
- •Transacetabular screw improves strain distribution and long-term outcome.
Abstract
Background
Use biomechanical technique to access the strain distribution and stability of Contour
anti-protrusion cage with or without the whole circumference acetabular cup fixation
by the transacetabular screws.
Methods
Pelvic specimens from 10 male cadavers were used for the biomechanical test. The models
of type C bone defect were copied according to the AAOS classification. Group 1: the
contour reconstruction ring was fixed only by flange screws; Group 2: the contour
reconstruction ring was fixed both by flange screws and transacetabular screws in
dome. Under load in Heel Strike, Midstance, and Toe off phase, the transverse and
longitudinal strains were measured in both the superior measure site near the root
of the iliac wing and the inferior measure site near the root of the ischium. The
relative displacement between the anterior inferior spine and the root of ischium
below acetabular component was also measured.
Findings
Compared with Group 1, the transverse and longitudinal pressure strain of Group 2
on the superior measure site decreased, and measure sites also showed reductions on
the inferior under load under three different gait phases. The result of mean relative
displacement showed transacetabular screws fixation couldn't provide significant improvement
of displacement prevention.
Interpretation
Biomechanical test showed that under the premise of a satisfied bone allograft and
well-fixed flange screws in iliac and ischium, the satisfactory initial stability
of the reconstruction cup can be achieved, but could not be improved by transacetabular
screw technique. However, the max strain in root part of the flange will be reduced
using transacetabular screws in ilium, pubis and ischium together, and the strain
distribution will also be improved.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinical BiomechanicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Acetabular anti-protrusio rings and cages in revision total hip arthroplasty.Semin. Arthroplast. 1995; 6: 68-75
- Acetabular revision with allograft bone. 103 revisions with 3 reconstruction alternatives, followed for 0.3–13 years.Acta Orthop. Scand. 1999; 70: 240-249
- Acetabular revision with the Contour antiprotrusio cage: 2- to 5-year followup.Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006; 453: 188-194
- Cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (CTAC) effect on the thermal stability of oxy-HbGp: dynamic light scattering (DLS) and small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) studies.Colloids Surf. B: Biointerfaces. 2014; 118: 14-24
- The Harris-Galante porous-coated acetabular component with screw fixation. An average ten-year follow-up study.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1999; 81: 66-73
- Cementless acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty.Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004; : 96-100
- Complications of ilioischial reconstruction rings in revision total hip arthroplasty.J. Arthroplast. 2004; 19: 436-446
- Initial stability of porous coated acetabular implants. The effect of screw placement, screw tightness, defect type, and oversize implants.Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1994; : 117-123
- Cementless acetabular revision with the Harris-Galante porous prosthesis. Results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2004; 86-A: 1007-1011
- Does a cemented cage improve revision THA for severe acetabular defects?.Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2011; 469: 494-502
- The relation between micromotion and screw fixation in acetabular cup.Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2006; 84: 34-41
- The number of screws, bone quality, and friction coefficient affect acetabular cup stability.Med. Eng. Phys. 2007; 29: 1089-1095
- Cementless acetabular fixation with and without screws: analysis of stability and migration.J. Arthroplast. 2010; 25: 309-313
- Cement as a locking mechanism for screw heads in acetabular revision shells - a biomechanical analysis.Hip Int. 2008; 18: 29-34
- Safe zone for transacetabular screw fixation in prosthetic acetabular reconstruction of high developmental dysplasia of the hip.J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2009; 91: 2880-2885
- A sliding-distance-coupled finite element formulation for polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty.J. Biomech. 1996; 29: 687-692
- Does ischial screw fixation improve mechanical stability in revision total hip arthroplasty?.J. Arthroplast. 2010; 25: 1157-1161
- Acetabular micromotion as a measure of initial implant stability in primary hip arthroplasty. An in vitro comparison of different methods of initial acetabular component fixation.J. Arthroplast. 1992; 7: 537-547
- Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants.Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1986; : 108-113
- Load transfer and fixation mode of press-fit acetabular sockets.J. Arthroplast. 2002; 17: 926-935
- Micromotion of cementless hemispherical acetabular components. Does press-fit need adjunctive screw fixation?.J. Bone Joint Surg. (Br.). 1995; 77: 484-489
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 21, 2017
Accepted:
June 20,
2017
Received:
October 26,
2016
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
