Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do
- PMID: 15577473
Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do
Abstract
The stability and durability of total hip reconstruction is dependent on many factors that include the design and anatomic orientation of prosthetic components. An analysis of femoral component head size and acetabular component orientation shows an interdependency of these variables and joint stability. Increased femoral component head size can increase hip stability by increasing the prosthetic impingement-free range of hip motion and by increasing the inferior head displacement required before hip dislocation. Increasing the femoral head size from 22 mm to 40 mm increases the required displacement for dislocation by about 5 mm with the acetabular component at 45 degrees of abduction; however, increasing acetabular component abduction greatly diminishes this stability advantage of larger femoral heads. Vertical acetabular component orientation and femoral component head subluxation are each predicted to more than double the tensile stress with acetabular component polyethylene compared with components at 45 degrees of abduction. With a desirable acetabular component orientation, the use of larger femoral heads may result in improved joint stability and durable use of polyethylene. With high abduction acetabular component orientation, the use of larger femoral heads contributes little to joint stability and contributes to elevated stress within the polyethylene that may result in implant failure.
Similar articles
-
Influence of femoral head size on impingement, dislocation and stress distribution in total hip replacement.Med Eng Phys. 2007 May;29(4):465-71. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.07.001. Epub 2006 Aug 9. Med Eng Phys. 2007. PMID: 16901743
-
Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation.J Orthop Res. 1998 Jul;16(4):513-7. doi: 10.1002/jor.1100160418. J Orthop Res. 1998. PMID: 9747795
-
Factors affecting hip range of motion in surface replacement arthroplasty.Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007 Nov;22(9):1004-12. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.07.007. Epub 2007 Sep 17. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2007. PMID: 17870221
-
New polymer materials in total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation with radiostereometry, bone densitometry, radiography and clinical parameters.Acta Orthop Suppl. 2005 Feb;76(315):3-82. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2005. PMID: 15790289 Review.
-
The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Apr;92(4):469-76. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22967. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010. PMID: 20357319 Review.
Cited by
-
Unexpected dislocation following accurate total hip arthroplasty caused by excessive hip joint laxity during myasthenic crisis: a case report.J Med Case Rep. 2018 Nov 6;12(1):331. doi: 10.1186/s13256-018-1886-6. J Med Case Rep. 2018. PMID: 30396362 Free PMC article.
-
Dutch guideline on total hip prosthesis.Acta Orthop. 2011 Oct;82(5):567-76. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.623575. Acta Orthop. 2011. PMID: 21992086 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
-
Low early and late dislocation rates with 36- and 40-mm heads in patients at high risk for dislocation.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):439-43. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2379-3. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. PMID: 22576929 Free PMC article.
-
The influence of stem offset and neck shaft angles on the range of motion in total hip arthroplasty.Int Orthop. 2016 Feb;40(2):245-53. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2826-3. Epub 2015 Jul 30. Int Orthop. 2016. PMID: 26224610
-
Survival and outcomes of different head sizes in primary total hip arthroplasty.J Orthop. 2019 Oct 9;16(6):A1-A3. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2019.10.001. eCollection 2019 Nov-Dec. J Orthop. 2019. PMID: 32395040 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources