The strength of bone-metal block for different types of implants surfaces under the conditions of normal bone and osteoporosis in rats

Authors

  • Volodymyr Filipenko
  • Mykhaylo Karpinsky
  • Olena Karpinska
  • Volodymyr Tankut
  • Mandus Akonjom
  • Stanislav Bondarenko

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872016172-77

Keywords:

implants surface, bone-metal block, osteointegration, joint replacement

Abstract

Fixing the acetabular component of prosthesis in the conditions of osteoporosis and changes in acetabulum anatomy is an actual problem of modern orthopedics.

The goal: to perform a comparative analysis of the strength of bone-metal block for the different type of implant surfaces in the conditions ofnormal bone and in the simulation of osteoporosis in rats.

The methods: experimental studies of femur strength were carried in 60 laboratory animals (rats). The animals were divided into two groups of 30 animals each: I — relatively healthy, II — osteoporosis induced by ovariectomy. 6 subgroups were formed in each group of animals. Implants of such differentmaterials as porous titanium, tantalum porous Trabecular Metal (Zimmer), titanium coated with Gription (DePuy), Stiktite (Smith & Nephew), Trabecular Titanium (Lima), Tritanum (Stryker) were used to fill a hole-like defect in distal metaphysis of femur. The animals were taken out of experiment 14 days after implanta­tion and biomechanical investigation was performed to assess the strength of operated and contralateral femurs. Longitudinal axial load using a metal rod was applied to femoral head. Load value gradually increased to complete destruction of anatomical specimen and measured.

The results: femurs with implants from porous tantalum Trabecular Metal and Stiktitewith stood the maximum load in the conditions of normal bone density. Specimen of femurs with implanted porous titanium (the most weak) and tantalum Trabecular Metal (the most solid) composed separate subsets in the conditions of simulated osteoporosis.

The conclusions: the comparative analysis of biomechanical investigation revealed that bone with implants from porous tantalum withstands the maximum breaking load in the conditions of normal and osteoporotic bone.

References

  1. Korzh M, Filipenko V, Tankut V, et al. [The use of cup for endoprosthesis of the hip joint with tantalum coating in defects of acetabular wall and osteoporosis]. Proceedings of the IX Congress of the Orthopaedic Trauma Belarus. Minsk, 2014, pp.260–6. [in Russian].
  2. Oliynyk O. Arthroplasty of hip joint with deformities and defects in the proximal femur and acetabulum: abstract dis. the doctor of medical sciences. Ukraine, 2011. 36 p.
  3. Loskutov O, Oleynik O, Said Imad Ali. Hip arthroplasty with acetabular defects. Bulletin of orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. 2008;3(58):10–3.
  4. Hip replacement. Ed. Loskutov O. Dnepropetrovsk: Lira, 2010. 344 p.
  5. Filipenko V, Hmyzov S, Zhigun A, et al. Features arthroplasty in patients with consequences fracture- dislocation of the hip. Bulletin of orthopedics, traumatology and prosthetics. 2015;2:28–33.
  6. Filipenko V, Korzh M. Hip replacement. Kharkiv: Collegium, 2015. 220 p.
  7. Schulte KR, Callaghan JJ, Kelley SS, Johnston RC. The outcome of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement after a minimum twenty-year follow-up: The results of one surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:961–75.
  8. Stauffer RN. Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64;983–90.
  9. Malchau H, Herberts P, Ahnfelt L. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden: Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990. Acta Orthop Scand. 1993;64:497–506.
  10. Smith SW, Estok II DM, Harris WH. Total hip arthroplasty with use of second generation cementing techniques: An eighteen-year-average follow-upstudy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1632–40.
  11. Wroblewski BM. 15-21-year results of the Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1986;211:30–35.
  12. Madey SM, Callaghan JJ, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved techniques of cementing: The results after a minimum improved techniques of cementing: The results after a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:53–64.
  13. Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Munuera L. Early and late loosening of the acetabular cup after low-friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74: 1119–29.
  14. Bedard NA, Callaghan JJ, Stefl MD, Liu SS. Systematic review of literature of cemented femoral compo¬nents: what is the durability at minimum 20 years followup? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):563-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3876-3.
  15. Romness DW, Lewallen DG. Total hip arthroplastyafter fracture of the acetabulum: long term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(5):761–4.
  16. Illgen RII, Rubash HE. The optimal fixation of the cementless acetabular component in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2002;10(1):43–56.
  17. Biemond JE, Hannink G, Jurrius AM, Verdonschot N, Buma P. In vivo assessment of bone ingrowth potential of three-dimensional e-beam produced implant surfaces and the effect of additional treatment by acid etching and hydroxyapatite coating. J Biomater Appl. 2012;26(7):861–75. doi: 10.1177/0885328210391495.
  18. Biemond JE, Eufrásio TS, Hannink G, Verdonschot N, Buma P. Assessment of bone ingrowth potential of biomimetic hydroxyapatite and brushite coated porous E-beam structures. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2011;22(4):917–25. doi: 10.1007/s10856-011-4256-0.
  19. Kusakabe H, Sakamaki T, Nihei K, Oyama Y, Yanagimoto S, Ichimiya M, Kimura J, Toyama Y. Osseointegration of a hydroxyapatite-coated multilayered mesh stem. Biomaterials. 2004;25(15):2957–69.
  20. Manders PJ, Wolke JG, Jansen JA. Bone response adjacent to calcium phosphate electrostatic spray deposition coated implants: an experimental study in goats. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(5):548–53.
  21. Soballe K. Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1993;255:1–58.
  22. Karageorgiou V, Kaplan D. Porosity of 3D biomaterial scaffolds and osteogenesis. Biomaterials. 2005;26(27):5474–91.
  23. Bone-Implant Interface in Orthopedic Surgery: Basic Science to Clinical Applications. Editors: Karachalios, Theofilos (Ed.). London: Springer-Verlag, 2014. 342 p.
  24. Rutskii O, Minchenya V, Maslov A. Estimates of volume fluffy titanium structure in Hip SLPS. Ars medica. 2011;17(53):25–30.
  25. Baad-Hansen T, Kold S, Nielsen PT, Laursen MB, Christensen PH, Soballe K. Comparison of trabecular metal cups and titanium fiber-mesh cups in primary hip arthroplasty: a randomized RSA and bone mineral densitometry study of 50 hips. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(2):155–60. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.572251.
  26. Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(5):907–14.
  27. Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, Unger AS, O'Keefe TJ, Christie MJ, Nasser S, Wood JE, Stulberg SD, Tanzer M. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. Ibid. 2004;86-A(S.2):123–9.
  28. Gayko G, Pidgayetskiy V. Porous titanium and titanium-hydroxyapatite coating for un0cement hip joint. Orthopedics, Traumatology and Prosthetics. 2008;(4):47–53.
  29. Moroni A, Toksvig-Larsen S, Maltarello MC, Orienti L, Stea S, Giannini S. A Comparison of Hydroxyapatite-Coated, Titanium-Coated, and Uncoated Tapered External-Fixation Pins. An in Vivo Study in Sheep. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:547–554.
  30. Fini M1, Carpi A, Borsari V, Tschon M, Nicolini A, Sartori M, Mechanick J, Giardino R. Bone remodeling, humoral networks and smart biomaterial technology for osteoporosis. Front Biosci (Schol Ed). 2010;1;2:468–82.
  31. Fini M, Giavaresi G, Torricelli P, Borsari V, Giardino R, Nicolini A, Carpi A. Osteoporosis and biomaterial osteointegration. Biomed Pharmacother. 2004;58(9):487–93.
  32. Sartori M, Giavaresi G, Parrilli A, Ferrari A2, Aldini NN, Morra M, Cassinelli C, Bollati D, Fini M. Collagen type I coating stimulates bone regeneration and osteointegration of titanium implants in the osteopenic rat. Int Orthopaedics. 2015;39(10):2041–52. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2926-0.
  33. Korzh M, Povoroznyuk V, Dedukh N, Zupanets I. Osteoporosis: epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, prevention, treatment. Kharkov: Zolotie Stranitsi, 2002. 646 p.
  34. Buhl A. SPSS. Introduction to the modern data analysis under Windows. Addison-Wesley, 2003. 608 p.

Downloads

How to Cite

Filipenko, V., Karpinsky, M., Karpinska, O., Tankut, V., Akonjom, M., & Bondarenko, S. (2016). The strength of bone-metal block for different types of implants surfaces under the conditions of normal bone and osteoporosis in rats. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-59872016172-77

Issue

No. 1 (2016)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2016 Volodymyr Filipenko, Mykhaylo Karpinsky, Olena Karpinska, Volodymyr Tankut, Mandus Akonjom, Stanislav Bondarenko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).