A critical analysis of stress shielding evaluation of hip prostheses
- PMID: 9505138
- DOI: 10.1615/critrevbiomedeng.v25.i4-5.30
A critical analysis of stress shielding evaluation of hip prostheses
Abstract
In vitro evaluation of the load transfer of hip prostheses has been performed in recent years for the purpose of understanding the stress shielding phenomena. Over 200 papers were reviewed to determine if a standard exists to evaluate and compare the performance of hip stems. Surprisingly, it was found that little agreement exists in the testing protocol. This makes it very difficult to compare the results reported in different investigations. In several cases very incomplete data are reported about the testing conditions, thus making it impossible to compare the results. This article focuses on: (1) how the loading conditions should be chosen based on physiological loading in a way to give a reproducible setup; (2) how the femur should be constrained; (3) how to generate the same system of loads in the intact and the implanted femur; (4) how to define a reference system; (5) how the specimen type and sample size are chosen; (6) the advantages and limitations of the different strain measurement techniques; (7) how the testing parameters have been chosen in the literature; and (8) how the accuracy of the results has been reported in the literature.
Similar articles
-
Critical Examination of Stress Shielding Evaluation of Hip Prostheses.Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2017;45(1-6):549-623. doi: 10.1615/CritRevBiomedEng.v45.i1-6.190. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2017. PMID: 29953388 Review.
-
In vitro stress shielding measurements can be affected by large errors.J Arthroplasty. 1999 Feb;14(2):215-9. doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90129-8. J Arthroplasty. 1999. PMID: 10065730
-
Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Dec;(285):13-29. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992. PMID: 1446429
-
Numerical evaluation of bone remodelling and adaptation considering different hip prosthesis designs.Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2017 Dec;50:122-129. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.10.015. Epub 2017 Oct 18. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2017. PMID: 29100185
-
New femoral designs: do they influence stress shielding?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec;453:64-74. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000246541.41951.20. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006. PMID: 17312586 Review.
Cited by
-
Variation in bone response to the placement of percutaneous osseointegrated endoprostheses: A 24-month follow-up in sheep.PLoS One. 2019 Oct 25;14(10):e0221850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221850. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31652276 Free PMC article.
-
Improved primary stability and load transfer of a customized osseointegrated transfemoral prosthesis compared to a commercial one.J Orthop Surg Res. 2025 Jan 27;20(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s13018-025-05476-x. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025. PMID: 39871350 Free PMC article.
-
Biomaterial-based strategies for maxillofacial tumour therapy and bone defect regeneration.Int J Oral Sci. 2021 Mar 16;13(1):9. doi: 10.1038/s41368-021-00113-9. Int J Oral Sci. 2021. PMID: 33727527 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Anatomic grooved stem mitigates strain shielding compared to established total hip arthroplasty stem designs in finite-element models.Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 24;9(1):482. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36503-z. Sci Rep. 2019. PMID: 30679467 Free PMC article.
-
Differences in external and internal cortical strain with prosthesis in the femur.Open Orthop J. 2011;5:379-84. doi: 10.2174/1874325001105010379. Epub 2011 Nov 18. Open Orthop J. 2011. PMID: 22235237 Free PMC article.