Biomechanical Evaluation of a Femoral Implant for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Dogs: An Ex Vivo Study

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to assess the stability of the femoral component of a hip resurfacing arthroplasty prosthesis in canine cadaveric bone using a biomechanical test.

Study Design Twenty adult dog cadavers were utilized, from which both femoral bones were extracted and preserved for experimentation. For each pair of femurs from the same animal, one femur underwent implantation of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty prosthesis, while the contralateral femur remained intact. All femoral specimens underwent flexo-compression biomechanical testing, with variables including maximum load (ML), load at collapse (LC), displacement at maximum load (DML), displacement at collapse (DC), and stiffness (k) being analysed. Subsequent to the biomechanical evaluation, the femoral specimens were radiographed to assess failure behaviour.

Results The prosthesis group showed a reduction of 22% (p ≤ 0.050) for the ML variable and 27% (p ≤ 0.05) for LC values. The prosthetic group supported a mean ML equivalent to six times the body weight of the animals whose bones were tested. No significant disparities were detected between the groups for the other analysed variables (DML, DC, and k). Similar failure patterns, such as fractures in the femoral neck region, were observed in specimens from both groups.

Conclusion The hip resurfacing arthroplasty prosthesis demonstrated biomechanical performance with no differences in DML, DC, and k but showed inferior performance in ML and LC when compared with intact femurs in the ex vivo setting.

Keywords

biomechanical test - hip arthroplasty - femoral prosthesis - hip dysplasia - osteoarthritis

Authors' Contribution

All authors contributed to the conception, study design, acquisition of data, data analysis and interpretation. L.M.D. contributed to study design. All authors drafted, revised, and approved the submitted manuscript and are publicly responsible for the relevant content.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. März 2024

Angenommen: 12. November 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Dezember 2024

• References

• 1 Meomartino L, Greco A, Mennonna G. et al. Joint laxity in canine hip dysplasia assessed using the hip flexed not distracted ventrodorsal view. J Small Anim Pract 2021; 62 (03) 187-193
• 2 Vandekerckhove LMJ, Herregodts S, Saunders JH, Broeckx BJG. Quantifying the stress in stress radiographs to determine sufficient laxity of the coxofemoral joint: a canine hip dysplasia cadaveric study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2024; 37 (01) 23-29
• 3 Harper TAM. Innoplant total hip replacement system. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2017; 47 (04) 935-944
• 4 Pritchett JW. Hip resurfacing using highly cross-linked polyethylene: prospective study results at 8.5 years. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2203-2208
• 5 Worden NJ, Ash KJ, Ordway NR. et al. Effect of stem positioning on biomechanical performance of a novel cementless short-stem canine total hip implant. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2022; 35 (01) 1-9
• 6 Girard J. Hip resurfacing: international perspectives: review article. HSS J 2017; 13 (01) 7-11
• 7 Calkins TE, Suleiman LI, Culvern C. et al. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty in the same patient: which do they prefer?. Hip Int 2021; 31 (03) 328-334
• 8 Phillips TW, Johnston G, Wood P. Selection of an animal model for resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1987; 2 (02) 111-117
• 9 Schatzker J, Goodman SB, Sumner-Smith G, Fornasier VL, Goften N, Bell RS. Wagner resurfacing arthroplasty of the canine hip. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1987; 106 (02) 94-101
• 10 Warburton KJ, Everingham JB, Helms JL. et al. Wear testing of a canine hip resurfacing implant that uses highly cross-linked polyethylene. J Orthop Res 2018; 36 (04) 1196-1205
• 11 Marshall DA, Pykerman K, Werle J. et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (07) 2217-2230
• 12 McBryde CW, Prakash R, Haddad FS. Hip resurfacing. Bone Joint J 2023; 105-B [phone]
• 13 Ortiz-Declet VR, Iacobelli DA, Yuen LC, Perets I, Chen AW, Domb BG. Birmingham hip resurfacing vs total hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair comparison of clinical outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3647-3651
• 14 Rumph PF, Hathcock JT. A symmetric axis-based method for measuring the projected femoral angle of inclination in dogs. Vet Surg 1990; 19 (05) 328-333
• 15 ASTM International. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. ASTM International; 2014. Accessed May 21, 2019 at: https://www.astm.org/d0638-14.html
• 16 Ordway NR, Ash KJ, Miller MA, Mann KA, Hayashi K. A biomechanical comparison of four hip arthroplasty designs in a canine model. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2019; 32 (05) 369-375
• 17 Wiebking U, Birkenhauer B, Krettek C, Gösling T. Initial stability of a new uncemented short-stem prosthesis, Spiron®, in dog bone. Technol Health Care 2011; 19 (04) 271-282
• 18 Page AE, Allan C, Jasty M, Harrigan TP, Bragdon CR, Harris WH. Determination of loading parameters in the canine hip in vivo. J Biomech 1993; 26 (4-5): 571-579
• 19 Walter RM, Carrier DR. Ground forces applied by galloping dogs. J Exp Biol 2007; 210 (Pt 2): 208-216
• 20 Kim JY, Hayashi K, Garcia TC. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of screw-in femoral implant in cementless total hip system. Vet Surg 2012; 41 (01) 94-102
• 21 Gao X, Fraulob M, Haïat G. Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review. J R Soc Interface 2019; 16 (156) 20190259
• 22 Sharir A, Barak MM, Shahar R. Whole bone mechanics and mechanical testing. Vet J 2008; 177 (01) 8-17
• 23 Shahar R, Banks-Sills L, Eliasy R. Stress and strain distribution in the intact canine femur: finite element analysis. Med Eng Phys 2003; 25 (05) 387-395
• 24 Kharmanda G. Reliability analysis for cementless hip prosthesis using a new optimized formulation of yield stress against elasticity modulus relationship. Mater Des 2015; 65: 496-504
• 25 Miles B, Kolos E, Appleyard R. et al. Biomechanical optimization of subject-specific implant positioning for femoral head resurfacing to reduce fracture risk. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2016; 230 (07) 668-674
• 26 Mishra AS, Kerr N, Doshi A, Quah C, Lewis J. Strategies for fixation of periprosthetic fragility fractures of the neck of femur below a well-functioning hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a case-series. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2023; 40: 102169
• 27 Henderson ER, Wills A, Torrington AM. et al. Evaluation of variables influencing success and complication rates in canine total hip replacement: results from the British Veterinary Orthopaedic Association Canine Hip Registry (collation of data: 2010-2012). Vet Rec 2017; 181 (01) 18-18
• 28 Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Webb J, Nargol AV. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (09) 1143-1151
• 29 Bradberry SM, Wilkinson JM, Ferner RE. Systemic toxicity related to metal hip prostheses. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2014; 52 (08) 837-847
• 30 DiVincenzo MJ, Frydman GH, Kowaleski MP. et al. Metallosis in a dog as a long-term complication following total hip arthroplasty. Vet Pathol 2017; 54 (05) 828-831