Michael M. Morlock

The aim here was to define realistic load conditions for hip implants, based on in vivo contact force measurements, and to see whether current ISO standards indeed simulate real loads. The load scenarios obtained are based on in vivo hip contact forces measured in 4 patients during different activities and on activity records from 31 patients. The load scenarios can be adapted to various test purposes by applying average or high peak loads, high-impact activities or additional low-impact activities, and by simulating normal or very active patients. The most strenuous activities are walking (average peak forces 1800 N, high peak forces 3900 N), going up stairs (average peak forces 1900 N, high peak forces 4200 N) and stumbling (high peak forces 11,000 N). Torsional moments are 50% higher for going up stairs than for walking. Ten million loading cycles simulate an implantation time of 3.9 years in active patients. The in vitro fatigue properties of cementless implant fixations are exceeded during stumbling. At least for heavyweight and very active subjects, the real load conditions are more critical than those defined by the ISO standards for fatigue tests.

BACKGROUND: Resurfacing of the hip joint is experiencing a revival due to improvements in materials, design, and manufacturing techniques. Despite good midterm outcomes, the high early rate of failure and concerns about metal debris require a detailed morphological and wear analysis of retrieved resurfacing implants in order to understand failure mechanisms. METHODS: A worldwide collection of hip resurfacing revision devices was initiated, and 267 components were received. Devices were analyzed by patient demographics, radiographic positioning, and wear, as well as morphologically and histologically. Specimens were grouped into four different failure types. They were also stratified into rim-loaded or non-rim-loaded groups. Failures were also assessed by surgeon learning-curve effects. RESULTS: Time to failure was significantly different between the four revision-type groups: Specimens with fractures involving the implant rim were most common (46%) and failed earliest after surgery (mean of ninety-nine days), followed by fractures inside the femoral head (20%, 262 days) and loose cups (9%, 423 days). Revisions not due to fractures or cup loosening (25%) occurred at a mean of 722 days after surgery. Rim-loaded implants exhibited an average twenty-one to twenty-sevenfold higher wear rate than implants without rim-loading. Rim-loaded implants also showed a steeper mean cup inclination than their non-rim-loaded counterparts (59 degrees compared with 50 degrees ). Most failures occurred during the learning curve of the surgeon (the first fifty to 100 implantations). CONCLUSIONS: Failures on the femoral side usually occur within the first nine months after surgery and appear to be most directly related to the implantation technique or patient selection. Later failures are observed mainly due to acetabular problems, either due to dramatically increased wear or poor cup anchorage. Improper cup anteversion may be similar to or more important than cup inclination in producing excessive wear.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted total hip replacement has become a common method of implantation, especially in Europe. It frequently has been postulated that robotic reaming would result in an improved clinical outcome due to the better fit of the prosthesis, but that has never been demonstrated in a prospective study, to our knowledge. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic-assisted implantation of a total hip replacement with conventional manual implantation. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-four patients scheduled for total hip replacement were randomly assigned to undergo either conventional manual implantation of an S-ROM prosthesis (eighty patients) or robotic-assisted implantation of such a prosthesis (seventy-four patients). The five-axis ROBODOC was used for the robotic-assisted procedures. Preoperatively as well as at three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months after surgery, the scores according to the Harris and Merle d'Aubigné systems and the Mayo clinical score were determined. Radiographs made at these intervals were analyzed for evidence of loosening, prosthetic alignment, and heterotopic ossification. RESULTS: Thirteen (18%) of the seventy-four attempted robotic implantations had to be converted to manual implantations as a result of failure of the system. The duration of the robotic procedures was longer than that of the manual procedures (mean and standard deviation,107.1 +/- 29.1 compared with 82.4 +/- 23.4 minutes, p < 0.001). Limb-length equality (mean discrepancy, 0.18 +/- 0.30 compared with 0.96 +/- 0.93 cm, p < 0.001) and varus-valgus orientation of the stem (mean angle between the femur and the shaft of the prosthesis, 0.34 degrees +/- 0.67 degrees compared with 0.84 degrees +/- 1.23 degrees, p < 0.001) were better after the robotic procedures. At six months, slightly more heterotopic ossification was seen in the group treated with robotic implantation. The group treated with robotic implantation had a better Mayo clinical score at six and twelve months and a better Harris score at twelve months; however, by twenty-four months, no difference was found between the groups with regard to any of the three scores. Dislocation was more frequent in the group treated with robotic implantation: it occurred in eleven of the sixty-one patients in that group compared with three of eighty in the other group (p < 0.001). Recurrent dislocation and pronounced limping were indications for revision surgery in eight of the sixty-one patients treated with robotic implantation compared with none of the seventy-eight (excluding two with revision for infection) treated with manual insertion (p < 0.001). Rupture of the gluteus medius tendon was observed during all of the revision operations. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic-assisted technology had advantages in terms of preoperative planning and the accuracy of the intraoperative procedure. Disadvantages were the high revision rate; the amount of muscle damage, which we believe was responsible for the higher dislocation rate; and the longer duration of surgery. This technology must be further developed before its widespread usage can be justified.