A Biometrological Procedure Preceeding the Resurfacing

Open access

Abstract

This paper presents a preoperative hip reconstruction method with diagnosed osteoarthritis using Durom Hip Resurfacing System (DHRS). The method is based on selection and application of the resurfacing to the pelvis reconstructed on the basis of computed tomography. Quality and geometrical parameters of distinguished tissues have a fundamental significance for locating and positioning the acetabular and femoral components. The application precedes the measurements of anatomical structures on a complex numerical model. The developed procedure enables functional selection of endo-prosthesis and its positioning in such a way that it secures geometric parameters within the bone bed and the depth , inclination angles and ante-version of the acetabular component, the neck-shaft angle and ante-torsion angle of the neck of the femoral bone, and reconstruction of the biomechanical axis of the limb and the physiological point of rotation in the implanted joint. Proper biomechanics of the bone-joint complex of the lower limb is determined by correlation of anatomical-geometrical parameters of the acetabular component and parameters of the femoral bone.

[1] Marker, D.R., Strimbu, K., McGrath, M.S., Zywiel, M.G., Mont, M.A. (2009). Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases, 67(2), 120‒127.

[2] Ryniewicz, A., Ryniewicz, A.M., Madej, T., Sładek, J., Gąska, A. (2013). Biometrological method of pelvis measurement and anatomical positioning of endoprosthesis of hip joint. Metrol. Meas. Syst., 20(1), 17‒26.

[3] Ollivere, B., Darrah, C., Barker, T., Nolan, J., Porteous, M.J. (2009). Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 91(8), 1025‒1030.

[4] Sharath, K.R., Bose, V.C. (2012). Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty of hip for avascular necrosis of femoral head - A minimum follow up of 2 years. Apollo Medicine, 9(4), 297‒302.

[5] Jiang, Y., Zhang, K., Die, J., Shi, Z., Zhao, H., Wang, K. (2011). A systematic review of modern metal-onmetal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients. The Journal of arthroplasty, 26(3), 419‒426.

[6] Treacy, R.B.C., McBryde, C.W., Shears, E., Pynsent, P.B. (2011). Birmingham hip resurfacing a minimum follow-up of ten years. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 93(1), 27‒33.

[7] Amstutz, H.C., Le Duff, M.J., Campbell, P.A., Gruen, T.A., Wisk, L.E. (2010). Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 92(16), 2663‒2671.

[8] Zlotorowicz, M., Szczodry, M., Czubak, J., Ciszek, B. (2011). Anatomy of the medial femoral circumflex artery with respect to the vascularity of the femoral head. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 93(11), 1471‒1474.

[9] Van Der Bracht, D., Vander Eecken, S., Vyncke, D., Van Dooren, J., Jansegers, E. (2011). Clinical and functional outcome of the Birmingham hip resurfacing. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica, 77, 771‒776.

[10] Alvarez-Vera, M., Contreras-Hernandez, G.R., Affatato, S., Hernandez-Rodriguez, M.A.L. (2014). A novel total hip resurfacing design with improved range of motion and edge-load contact stress. Materials & Design, 55, 690‒698.

[11] Pérez, M.A., Vendittoli, P.A., Lavigne, M., Nuño, N. (2014). Bone remodeling in the resurfaced femoral head: Effect of cement mantle thickness and interface characteristics. Medical Engineering & Physics, 36(2), 185‒195.

[12] Ryniewicz, A.M. (2011). Identification, modelling and biotribology of human joints. AGH University of Science and Technology Press, Krakow.

[13] Korkmaz, O., Bozkus, F.S., Aykut, U.S., Caki, H.C., Kaygusuz, M.A. (2012). The effect of component position on clinical outcomes in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 46(1), 13‒16.

[14] Coulter, G., Young, D.A., Dalziel, R.E., Shimmin, A.J. (2012). Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years Results from an independent centre. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 94(3), 315‒321.

[15] Sakagoshi, D., Kabata, T., Umemoto, Y., Sakamoto, J., Tomita, K. (2010). A mechanical analysis of femoral resurfacing implantation for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 25(8), 1282‒1289.

[16] Madej, T., Ryniewicz, A.M. (2010). The material-structure estimation of endoprostheses of hip joint in the numerical simulations. Engineering of Biomaterials, 95(14), 22‒32.

[17] Cilingir, A.C. (2010). Finite Element Analysis of the Contact Mechanics of Ceramic-on-Ceramic Hip Resurfacing Prostheses. J. Bionic. Eng., 7(3), 244‒53. 106

Metrology and Measurement Systems

The Journal of Committee on Metrology and Scientific Instrumentation of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 1.598

CiteScore 2016: 1.58

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.460
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.228

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 60 60 7
PDF Downloads 17 17 3