Domínguez-Hernández VM, Carbajal RMF, Rico MG, Urriolagoitia CG

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 37-44
PDF size: 152.32 Kb.

ABSTRACT

A finite element model of a coupled bone-non-conventional prosthesis system was developed. The implant is mainly employed in the treatment of tumors that affect the proximal end of the femur, being instability the main disadvantage of this implant. The geometry of the femur was established by means of sixty tomographic scans using Ansys software, version 5.7. Afterwards, a bone-prosthesis model was integrated with 19895 elements and 34154 nodal points. We examined four cases, in the first three cases only hip joint reaction force was considered and a proximal pin was placed at 50, 25 and 75 mm from the osteotomy site. A distal pin was placed 25 mm from the proximal in all cases. A fourth case considered additionally abductor muscle force, with the proximal pin placed at 50 mm. We found that as pins approach the osteotomy site, stresses induced within pins are increased in the same rate. The fourth case presented the best results, followed by case 1, 2 and 3. Since current practice do not permit to attach abductor muscle directly to the implant, case 1 is the best option, however, our results encourage research directed to restore abductor lever and improve implant stability.

REFERENCES

1. Moore AT, Bohlman HR. Metal hip joint. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg 1943; 25A: 688.

2. Bingold AC. Prosthetic replacement of a chondrosarcoma of the upper end of the femur. Eighteen years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 1972; 54B: 139-142.

3. Johnson R, Carlsson A, Kirsch K. Function following mega total hip arthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty and healthy matched controls. Clin Orthop 1985; 192: 159-167.

4. Lewis MM, Chekofsky KM. Proximal femur replacement for neoplasic disease. Clin Orthop 1982; 171: 72-79.

5. Gebhart M, Maini-Varlet P, Aerens C. Functional evaluation of megaprostheses replacing the proximal femur. Acta Othop Belg 1993; 59, Suppl I: 47-51.

6. Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FJ, Chao EYS, Wallrichs SL. Long term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplasic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg 1995; 77-B(3): 351-356.

7. Johnson R, Carlsson A, Kirsch K. Function following mega total hip arthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty and healthy matched controls. Clin Orthop 1985; 192: 159-167.

8. Clarke HD, Berry DJ, Sim FH. Salvage of failed femoral megaprostheses with allograft prosthesis composites. Clin Orthop 1998; 356: 222-229.

9. Flores-Verdugo VM, Nájera-Castro MA, Rodríguez-Cabrera R, Bárcena-Jiménez LR. Megaprótesis del extremo proximal del fémur para el tratamiento de las lesiones tumorales, osteosíntesis fallida o ruptura del vástago femoral. Resultados radiográficos a mediano plazo en 20 casos. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 1994; 8(2): 65-70.

10. Veth R, Nielsen H, Oldhof J. Megaprostheses in the treatment of primary malignant and metastatic tumors in hip region. J Surg Oncol 1989; 40: 214-218.

11. Haentjens P, De Boeck H, Opdecam P. Proximal femoral replacement prosthesis for salvage of failed hip arthroplasty. Complication in a 2-11 follow-up study in 19 elderly patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1996; 67(1): 37-42.

12. Rico-Martínez G, Linares-González LM, Domínguez-Hernández VM. Prótesis tumoral no convencional bloqueada para cadera. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 1997; 11(6): 385-388.

13. Domínguez Hernández VM, Carbajal Romero MF, Feria Reyes CV, Urriolagoitia Calderón G, Hernández Gómez LH, Rico Martínez G, Damián Noriega Z, Lomelí Mejía PA. Biomecánica de un fémur sometido a carga. Desarrollo de un modelo tridimensional por medio del método del elemento finito. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 1999; 13(6): 633-638.

14. Taylor ME, Tanner KE, Freeman MAR, Yettram AL. Stress and strain distribution within the intact femur; compression of bending?. Med Eng Phys 1996; 18(2): 122-131.

15. Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT. Allograft-Prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop 1996; 322: 207-223.