journal article·2006-02

Fatigue of the cement/bone interface: The surface texture of bone and loosening

D. Arola, K. A. Stoffel, D. T. Yang

Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Loosening is recognized as one of the primary sources of total hip replacement (THR) failure. In this study the influence of the bone surface texture on loosening of the cement/bone interface was studied. Model cemented hip replacements were prepared and subjected to cyclic loads that induced pure shear fatigue of the cement/bone interface. The femoral canals were textured with the use of specific cutting tools to achieve a desired surface topography. Loosening of the implant with cyclic loading was characterized in terms of the initial migration (Region I), steady‐state loosening (Region II), and unstable loosening (Region III). Results from the experiments showed that the initial migration and rate of steady‐state loosening were dependent upon the bone surface topography. The apparent fatigue strength ranged from 0.8 to 5.1 MPa, and denotes the cyclic shear stress required for loosening of 1 mm within 10 million cycles. Regardless of the bone surface topography the ratio of apparent fatigue strength and ultimate shear strength of the interfaces was approximately 0.24. In general, the apparent fatigue strength increased proportional to the average surface roughness of the femoral canal and the corresponding volume available for cement interdigitation. In addition, there was a strong correlation between the normalized initial migration and the apparent fatigue strength (i.e., specimens with the highest initial migration exhibited the lowest fatigue strength). © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2006
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Orthopedic Infections and Treatments · Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s00264-002-0386-910.1007/s00264-002-0386-9 ↗
2. 10.1054/arth.2002.3269710.1054/arth.2002.32697 ↗
3. 10.1007/s00256005055210.1007/s002560050552 ↗
4. 10.1302/0301-620X.79B2.724510.1302/0301-620X.79B2.7245 ↗
5. 10.2106/00004623-198567040-0000310.2106/00004623-198567040-00003 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.arth.2004.04.00310.1016/j.arth.2004.04.003 ↗
7. Failure of the cement–bone interface. A consequence of strengthening the cement–prosthesis interface?10.1302/0301-620X.76B1.8300681 ↗
8. 10.2106/00004623-199509000-0000410.2106/00004623-199509000-00004 ↗
9. The effect of using a plasma‐sprayed stem‐cement interface on stresses in a cemented femoral hip component
10. 10.1302/0301-620X.82B2 .961310.1302/0301-620X.82B2 .9613 ↗
11. 10.1007/BF0038163610.1007/BF00381636 ↗
12. Effect of gentamicin on the shear and interface strength of bone cement
13. 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1992_206_261_0210.1243/PIME_PROC_1992_206_261_02 ↗
14. Testing of bone–biomaterial interfacial bonding strength; a comparison of different techniques
15. 10.1002/jor.110001041010.1002/jor.1100010410 ↗
16. Strength of the cement–bone interface10.1097/00003086-198203000-00043 ↗
17. The effect of bleeding on the cement‐bone interface10.1097/00003086-199402000-00040 ↗
18. Bone surface preparation in cemented joint replacement10.1302/0301-620X.75B3.8496223 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0021-9290(96)00164-910.1016/S0021-9290(96)00164-9 ↗
20. 10.1097/00003086-199810000-0001010.1097/00003086-199810000-00010 ↗
21. 10.1097/00003086-199810000-0001110.1097/00003086-199810000-00011 ↗
22. 10.1016/S0021-9290(99)00107-410.1016/S0021-9290(99)00107-4 ↗
23. 10.1097/00003086-199608000-0004010.1097/00003086-199608000-00040 ↗
24. 10.1016/S0883-5403(87)80062-110.1016/S0883-5403(87)80062-1 ↗
25. 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90051-210.1016/0021-9290(92)90051-2 ↗
26. 10.1302/0301-620X.79B2.746110.1302/0301-620X.79B2.7461 ↗
27. 10.1002/jbm.82022140410.1002/jbm.820221404 ↗
28. 10.1002/1097-4636(200009)53:5<505::AID-JBM9>3.0.CO;2-T10.1002/1097-4636(200009)53:5<505::AID-JBM9>3.0.CO;2-T ↗
29. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00631-810.1016/S0142-9612(03)00631-8 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.01110.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.011 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.orthres.2003.09.00710.1016/j.orthres.2003.09.007 ↗
32. 10.1016/0021-9290(96)00020-610.1016/0021-9290(96)00020-6 ↗
33. 10.1002/jbm.104910.1002/jbm.1049 ↗
34. ArolaD StoffelKA YangDT.Fatigue of the cement/bone interface: Surface texture and wear debris. Submitted for publication.
35. 10.1016/S0021-9290(97)00082-110.1016/S0021-9290(97)00082-1 ↗
36. 10.1016/0883-5403(93)90004-N10.1016/0883-5403(93)90004-N ↗
37. 10.2106/00004623-198870010-0000810.2106/00004623-198870010-00008 ↗
38. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00040-910.1016/S0021-9290(01)00040-9 ↗
39. 10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00035-510.1016/S0021-9290(01)00035-5 ↗
40. HeipleKG SheaKL NelsonDL DavyDT.Enhancement of the shear strength of the bone‐methacrylate interface. Transactions of the 32nd Orthop. Res. Soc. Meeting;1986. p354.
41. Does early micromotion of femoral stem prosthesis matter?10.1302/0301-620X.76B6.7983118 ↗
42. Cement migration after THR. A comparison of Charnley Elite and Exeter femoral stems using RSA10.1302/0301-620X.81B1.0810130 ↗
43. 10.1016/0021-9290(88)90005-X10.1016/0021-9290(88)90005-X ↗
44. Prediction of clinical outcome of THR from migration measurements on standard radiographs10.1302/0301-620X.77B5.7559694 ↗