Abstract
ABSTRACTPurposeTo evaluate the biomechanical properties of a novel total hip replacement femoral stem.MethodsEight pairs of femurs from dog cadavers were used. The femurs were separated into different groups. A novel femoral stem with a convex proximal portion (Stem B) was biomechanically evaluated and compared to awell-known veterinary collared stem (Stem A). Femoral stems were inserted into the contralateral femurs from the same dog, forming 16 constructs. A flexo-compression load was applied on the axial axis of each sample. Maximum strength, deflection, stiffness, and energy absorption were analysed.ResultsGroup B constructs showed significantly higher values (p ? 0.05) for the variables, except stiffness. The mean maximum strength was 1,347 ± 357 N for Group A and 1,805 ± 123 N for Group B (p ? 0.0069). The mean deflection was5.54 ± 2.63 mm for Group A and 10.03 ± 3.99 mm for Group B (p ? 0.0056). For the energy variable, the force was 6,203 ± 3,488 N/mm for Group A and 12,885 ± 5,056 N/mm for Group B (p ? 0.0054). Stem B had greater maximum strength, deflection, and energy.ConclusionsThe new stem was effective in neutralizing the impact of axial flexion-compression stresses during biomechanical tests in cadaveric models.
Highlights
Complication rates after canine total hip replacement (THR) range from 8 to 22% for both cemented and cementless techniques[1,2]
The objective of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of a novel total hip replacement femoral stem (Stem B), which was compared to a well-known collared femoral stem (Stem A)
The statistical analyses of the variables for bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral composition (BMC) revealed similarity between the selected samples for both Group A and Group B—the samples were homogeneous, and there was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.05) regarding BMD and BMC
Summary
Complication rates after canine total hip replacement (THR) range from 8 to 22% for both cemented and cementless techniques[1,2]. Increasing numbers of cases require revision procedures[3]. The most common complications after THR in dogs are infection, aseptic loosening of implants, luxation, femoral fractures, and femoral stem subsidence[4]. One of the reasons for their development was to eliminate the complications associated with the cement[6]. In spite of the good performance of canine cementless THR, many studies have described specific complications, especially those associated with the fixation of the femoral component such as catastrophic subsidence, peri-prosthetic fissures and femoral fractures[1,2,7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
