A biomechanical testing system to determine micromotion between hip implant and femur accounting for deformation of the hip implant: Assessment of the influence of rigid body assumptions on micromotions measurements

Leuridan, Steven; Goossens, Quentin; Roosen, Jorg; Pastrav, Leonard; Denis, Kathleen; Mulier, Michiel; Desmet, Wim; Sloten, Jos Vander

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.01.009

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this purpose, markers are attached to the implant as well as to the bone to measure the micromotions between the components under loading conditions. The translational motions between the implant and the bone are often below 100 μm and rotations far below one degree can occur [ 12 – 14 ]. Due to improvements of marker-based measurement systems in the last decades, these systems were also used for these biomechanical research areas, where high accuracies are needed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Schroeder

Jaeger

Schwer³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Multiple camera systems are widely used for 3D-motion analysis. Due to increasing accuracies these camera systems gained interest in biomechanical research areas, where high precision measurements are desirable. In the current study different measurement systems were compared regarding their measurement accuracy. Materials and methods Translational and rotational accuracy measurements as well as the zero offset measurements of seven different measurement systems were performed using two reference devices and two different evaluation algorithms. All measurements were performed in the same room with constant temperature at the same laboratory. Equal positions were measured with the systems according to a standardized protocol. Measurement errors were determined and compared. Results The highest measurement errors were seen for a measurement system using active ultrasonic markers, followed by another active marker measurement system (infrared) having measurement errors up to several hundred micrometers. The highest accuracies were achieved by three stereo camera systems, using passive 2D marker points having errors typically below 20 μm. Conclusions This study can help to better assess the results obtained with different measurement systems. With the focus on the measurement accuracy, only one aspect in the selection of a system was considered. Depending on the requirements of the user, other factors like measurement frequency, the maximum analyzable volume, the marker type or the costs are important factors as well.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Schroeder

Jaeger

Schwer³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3] Early and excessive implant micromotion impairs bone formation, induces the formation of fibrotic tissue, and results in aseptic loosening, a leading cause of expensive and complex revision surgery. [4][5][6][7] TJAs rely on the bone formation of the metaphyseal cancellous bone to achieve osseointegration. [8][9][10] Older patients and those with metabolic bone diseases generally have reduced cancellous bone quality and quantity of putting them at higher risk of aseptic loosening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of cementless total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) depends on rapid osseointegration, the process of structural and functional attachment of the implant to surrounding 1–3 . Early and excessive implant micromotion impairs bone formation, induces the formation of fibrotic tissue, and results in aseptic loosening, a leading cause of expensive and complex revision surgery 4–7 . TJAs rely on the bone formation of the metaphyseal cancellous bone to achieve osseointegration 8–10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alendronate enhances osseointegration in a murine implant model

Vertesich

Sosa

Niu

et al. 2020

Journal Orthopaedic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Administration of bisphosphonates following total joint arthroplasty might be beneficial to reduce aseptic loosening. However, their effects on peri-implant bone formation and bone-implant interface strength have not been investigated yet. We used a physiologically loaded mouse implant model to investigate the short-term effects of postoperative systemic alendronate on osseointegration. A titanium implant with a rough surface was inserted in the proximal tibiae of 17-week-old female C57BL/6 mice (n = 44). Postimplantation mice were given alendronate (73 μg/kg/days, n = 22) or vehicle (n = 22) 5 days/week. At 7-and 14-day postimplantation, histology and histomorphometry were conducted. At 28 days, microcomputed tomography and biomechanical testing were performed (n = 10/group). Postoperative alendronate treatment enhanced osseointegration, increasing maximum pullout load by 45% (p < .001) from 19.1 ± 4.5 N in the control mice to 27.6 ± 4.9 N in the treated mice, at day 28 postimplantation. Alendronate treatment increased the bone volume fraction by 139% (p < .001) in the region distal to the implant and 60% (p < .05) in the peri-implant region. At 14-day postimplantation, alendronate treatment decreased the number of osteoclasts per bone perimeter (p < .05) and increased bone volume fraction (p < .01) when compared with the control group. Postimplantation, short-term alendronate treatment enhanced osseointegration as demonstrated by increased bone mass, trabecular bone thickness, and maximum pullout load. Alendronate decreased peri-implant osteoclasts while preserving peri-implant osteoblasts and endothelial cells, in turn, increasing bone volume fraction. This data supports the postoperative clinical use of bisphosphonates, especially in patients with high risks of aseptic loosening.

show abstract

“…One of them consists in analyzing micromotions at the BII using linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs). This method was used to compare the FS stability in bone mimicking phantoms using different kinds of stem fixation (Baleani et al, 2001), for resurfacing hip implants with different loading conditions (Cristofolini et al, 2006), to study the effects of implant undersizing (Fottner et al, 2017), and by considering unidirectional micromotion (Leuridan et al, 2017). Other studies investigated the behavior of FS with different sizes or shapes in human femur (Bieger et al, 2013) and in composite bone (Schmidutz et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex vivo estimation of cementless femoral stem stability using an instrumented hammer

Lomami

Damour

Rosi

et al. 2020

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The success of cementless hip arthroplasty depends on the primary stability of the femoral stem. It remains difficult to assess the optimal number of impacts to guarantee the femoral stem stability while avoiding bone fracture. The aim of this study is to validate a method using a hammer instrumented with a force sensor to monitor the insertion of femoral stem in bovine femoral samples. Methods Different cementless femoral stem were impacted into five bovine femur samples, leading to 99 configurations. Three methods were used to quantify the insertion endpoint: the impact hammer, video motion tracking and the surgeon proprioception. For each configuration, the number of impacts performed by the surgeon until he felt a correct insertion was noted Nsurg. The insertion depth E was measured through video motion tracking, and the impact number Nvid corresponding to the end of the insertion was estimated. Two indicators, noted I and D, were determined from the analysis of the time variation of the force, and the impact number Nd corresponding to a threshold reached in D variation was estimated. Findings The pullout force of the femoral stem was significantly correlated with I (R²=0.81). The values of Nsurg, Nvid and Nd were similar for all configurations. Interpretation The results validate the use of the impact hammer to assess the primary stability of the femoral stem and the moment when the surgeon should stop the impaction procedure for an optimal insertion, which could lead to the development of a decision support system.

show abstract

A biomechanical testing system to determine micromotion between hip implant and femur accounting for deformation of the hip implant: Assessment of the influence of rigid body assumptions on micromotions measurements

Cited by 7 publications

References 49 publications

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Accuracy measurement of different marker based motion analysis systems for biomechanical applications: A round robin study

Alendronate enhances osseointegration in a murine implant model

Ex vivo estimation of cementless femoral stem stability using an instrumented hammer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About