scholarly journals Initial stability of cementless acetabular cups: press-fit and screw fixation interaction—an in vitro biomechanical study

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomonori Tabata ◽  
Nobuhiro Kaku ◽  
Katsutoshi Hara ◽  
Hiroshi Tsumura
Spine ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (22) ◽  
pp. 2530-2537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vedat Deviren ◽  
Emre Acaroglu ◽  
Joe Lee ◽  
Masaru Fujita ◽  
Serena Hu ◽  
...  

Biomaterials ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (17) ◽  
pp. 3887-3894 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.M. Ooms ◽  
N. Verdonschot ◽  
J.G.C. Wolke ◽  
W.Van de Wijdeven ◽  
M.M.M. Willems ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. L. Norman ◽  
E. S. Ackerman ◽  
T. S. Smith ◽  
T. A. Gruen ◽  
A. J. Yates ◽  
...  

Cementless total hip femoral components rely on press-fit for initial stability and bone healing and remodeling for secondary fixation. However, the determinants of satisfactory press-fit are not well understood. In previous studies, human cortical bone loaded circumferentially to simulate press-fit exhibited viscoelastic, or time dependent, behavior. The effect of bone viscoelastic behavior on the initial stability of press-fit stems is not known. Therefore, in the current study, push-out loads of cylindrical stems press-fit into reamed cadaver diaphyseal femoral specimens were measured immediately after assembly and 24h with stem-bone diametral interference and stem surface treatment as independent variables. It was hypothesized that stem-bone interference would result in a viscoelastic response of bone that would decrease push-out load thereby impairing initial press-fit stability. Results showed that push-out load significantly decreased over a 24h period due to bone viscoelasticity. It was also found that high and low push-out loads occurred at relatively small amounts of stem-bone interference, but a relationship between stem-bone interference and push-out load could not be determined due to variability among specimens. On the basis of this model, it was concluded that press-fit fixation can occur at relatively low levels of diametral interference and that stem-bone interference elicits viscoelastic response that reduces stem stability over time. From a clinical perspective, these results suggest that there could be large variations in initial press-fit fixation among patients.


2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090561
Author(s):  
Ryan DenHaese ◽  
Anup Gandhi ◽  
Chris Ferry ◽  
Sam Farmer ◽  
Randall Porter

Study Design: In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study. Objective: Biomechanically characterize a novel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) implant possessing integrated lateral modular plate fixation (MPF). Methods: A human lumbar cadaveric (n = 7, L1-L4) biomechanical study of segmental range-of-motion stiffness was performed. A ±7.5 Nċm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using a 6 degree-of-freedom kinematics system. Specimens were tested first in an intact state and then following iterative instrumentation (L2/3): (1) LLIF cage only, (2) LLIF + 2-screw MPF, (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF, (4) LLIF + 4-screw MPF + interspinous process fixation, and (5) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Comparative analysis of range-of-motion outcomes was performed between iterations. Results: Key biomechanical findings: (1) Flexion/extension range-of-motion reduction with LLIF + 4-screw MPF was significantly greater than LLIF + 2-screw MPF ( P < .01). (2) LLIF with 2-screw and 4-screw MPF were comparable to LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation range-of-motion reduction ( P = 1.0). (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF and supplemental interspinous process fixation range-of-motion reduction was comparable to LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation in all directions ( P ≥ .6). Conclusions: LLIF with 4-screw MPF may provide inherent advantages over traditional 2-screw plating modalities. Furthermore, when coupled with interspinous process fixation, LLIF with MPF is a stable circumferential construct that provides biomechanical utility in all principal motions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 820-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Go Yamako ◽  
Etsuo Chosa ◽  
Koji Totoribe ◽  
Shinji Watanabe ◽  
Takero Sakamoto

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document