Evaluation of the Micromotion as a Function of the Area Where Press-Fit Is Applied for a Cementless Hip Implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Modeling the press-fit that occurs in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) cementless implants is crucial for the prediction of micromotion using finite element analysis (FEA). Some studies investigated the effect of the press-fit magnitude and found a direct influence on the micromotion [1,2]. They assumed in their model that press-fit occurs throughout the prosthesis. However [3] found using computed tomography measurement that only 43% of the stem-bone interfaces is really in contact. The aim of this study is to investigate the press-fit effect at the stem-bone interface on the implant micromotion. Methods Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed on a Profemur® TL implanted into a Sawbones®. The implant orientation was validated in a previous study [4]. All materials were defined as linear isotropic homogeneous. FEA was carried out for the static loading conditions defined by [5] simulating walking fastly. Frictional contact between the bone and the prosthesis was assumed all along the prosthesis with a coefficient μ set to 0, 63 for the plasma spray (Fig. 1a) and 0,39 for the polished surface (Fig. 1b) [6]. Firstly, FEA was performed without press-fit (Fig. 2a) and then press-fit was simulated with an interference of 0,05 mm [2] between stem and bone in specific areas: superior (Fig. 2b), intermediate (Fig. 2c), inferior (Fig. 2d), and cortical alone (Fig. 2e) and finally over the entire surface in contact with the bone. The press-fit effect at the stem-bone interface on the micromotion was investigated. Measurement of the micromotion was realised on different points located on the plasma spray surface by calculating the difference between the final displacement of the prosthesis and the final displacement of the bone. Results When press-fit is applied along the entire stem-bone interface, micromotion is lower than 10 μm. In the case when no press fit is simulated, micromotion is in the range of 11 μm and 48 μm. When press-fit is included where only cortical bone is (small areas mid-way proximal and medial part), micromotion is in the range of 17 μm and 30 μm. When the press-fit is included where inferior cancellous bone is (more distal), micromotion is between 9 μm and 38 μm. When the press-fit is included in the intermediate cancellous bone (mid-way), micromotion is between 1 μm and 47 μm. Finally, when press-fit is involved in the superior cancellous bone (more proximal) alone, micromotion is in the range of 4 μm and 12 μm. The results are shown on Fig. 3. Discussion The maximum stem-bone interface micromotions calculated in this study always remain lower than 50 μm. [7] shows that interfacial micromotion greater than 40 μm produces only partial ingrowth. This indicates that in our study, in all cases investigated the primary stability was not compromised. In general, press-fit increased the primary stability. Our results indicate that press-fit in the proximal area improves widely the primary stability of this prosthesis, especially if the implant is in direct contact with cortical and cancellous bone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".