Abstract：Objective To investigate effect of the biological prosthesis on load properties of the proximal femur after hemiarthroplasty with partial resection of the femoral head in order to assess stability of the prosthetic implant.Methods Twenty-four young fresh normal femur (with preservation of femoral head) specimens were assigned to prosthesis group (n =8),control group (n =8) and fatigue group (n =8).Specimens in prosthesis group underwent artificial femoral head replacement using self-designed prostheses.Stress at the femoral head with the model standing on one leg was performed.Biomechanical machine was used to detect the difference of load-stress and load-displacement before and after femoral head replacement under the load of 2000 N.Detection points included lateral superior base of femoral neck (A),medial side of lesser trochanter of femur (B),and inferior side of greater trochanter of femur (C).Results At the load of 2 000 N,the load-stress at inferior side of greater trochanter of femur and medial side of lesser trochanter of femur revealed no significance differences between the normal femur and femur with artificial femoral head replacement (P ＞ 0.05),while the difference was significant at lateral superior base of femoral neck (P ＜ 0.05).There were no significant differences of load-stress at A,B,and C points among fatigue group,prosthesis group and control group (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion After partial femoral head replacement,the biological prosthesis is effective in maintenance of the normal stress transfer in the proximal femur.
. In vitro load test of biological prosthesis replacement after partial resection of femoral head[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF TRAUMA, 2013, 29(12): 1170-1173.
［1］Min BW, Song KS, Bae KC, et al. The effect of stem alignment on results of total hip arthroplasty with a cementless tapered-wedge femoral component. J Arthroplasty, 2008, 23(3):418-423.
［2］Chandler M, Kowalski RS, Watkins ND, et al. Cementing techniques in hip resurfacing. Proc Inst Mech Eng H, 2006, 220(2):321-331.
［3］Maurer SG, Baitner AC, Di Cesare PE. Reconstruction of the failed femoral component and proximal femoral bone loss in revision hip surgery.J Am Acad Orthop Surg,2000,8(6):354-363.
［4］Nizam I,Kohan L,Kerr D.Hip resurfacing in an 88-year-old patient? Highlighting selection criteria for hip resurfacings in patients older than 65 years.J Arthroplasty,2009,24(7):1143-1143.e11-14
［6］Little JP, Taddei F, Viceconti M,et al.Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty：response to physiological loads. Clin Biomech （Bristol, Avon）,2007,22(4):440-448.
［7］Siguier T,Siguier M,Judet T,et al.Partial resurfacing arthroplasty of the femoral head in avascular necrosis. Methods, indications, and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2001, (386):85-92.
［13］Waide V, Cristofolini L, Stolk J, et al. Modelling the fibrous tissue layer in cemented hip replacements：experimental and finite element methods. J Biomech, 2004, 37(1):13-26.
［15］Kulkarni M, Wylde V, Aspros D, et al. Early clinical experience with a metaphyseal loading implant: why have a stem?Hip Int, 2006, 16 Suppl:3-8.
［16］McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, et al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1996, (329 Suppl):S89-S98.
