Submitted:
09 September 2024
Posted:
10 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Case Description
2.1. Case Presentation
2.2. Finite Element Analysis
3. Methods
3.1. Three-Dimensional Modeling of the Femur and Implant
3.2. Material Properties
3.2.1. Bone Material (Femur)
3.2.2. Other Materials (Stem and Artificial Head)
3.3. Loading and Boundary Conditions
3.4. Static Structural Analysis
4. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shane, E.; Burr, D.; Abrahamsen, B.; Adler, R.A.; Brown, T.D.; Cheung, A.M.; Cosman, F.; Curtis, J.R.; Dell, R.; Dempster, D.W.; Ebeling, P.R.; Einhorn, T.A.; Genant, H.K.; Geusens, P.; Klaushofer, K.; Lane, J.M.; McKiernan, F.; McKinney, R.; Ng, A.; Nieves, J.; O'Keefe, R.; Papapoulos, S.; Howe, T.S.; van der Meulen, M.C.; Weinstein, R.S.; Whyte, M.P. Atypical subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures: second report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. J Bone Miner Res 2014, 29, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moya-Angeler, J.; Zambrana, L.; Westrich, G.H.; Lane, J.M. Atypical femoral fracture post total hip replacement in a patient with hip osteoarthritis and an ipsilateral cortical thickening. Hip Int 2016, 26, e19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hirata, Y.; Inaba, Y.; Kobayashi, N.; Ike, H.; Fujimaki, H.; Saito, T. Comparison of mechanical stress and change in bone mineral density between two types of femoral implant using finite element analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013, 28, 1731–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tano, A.; Oh, Y.; Fukushima, K.; Kurosa, Y.; Wakabayashi, Y.; Fujita, K.; Yoshii, T.; Okawa, A. Potential bone fragility of mid-shaft atypical femoral fracture: Biomechanical analysis by a CT-based nonlinear finite element method. Injury 2019, 50, 1876–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keyak, J.H.; Rossi, S.A.; Jones, K.A.; Skinner, H.B. Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 1998, 31, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergmann, G.; Bender, A.; Dymke, J.; Duda, G.; Damm, P. Standardized loads acting in hip implants. PLoS One 2016, 11, e0155612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, M.O.; Bergmann, G.; Kassi, J.P.; Claes, L.; Haas, N.P.; Duda, G.N. Determination of muscle loading at the hip joint for use in pre-clinical testing. J Biomech 2005, 38, 1155–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biemond, J.E.; Aquarius, R.; Verdonschot, N.; Buma, P. Frictional and bone ingrowth properties of engineered surface topographies produced by electron beam technology. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011, 131, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O'Shea, K.; Quinlan, J.F.; Kutty, S.; Mulcahy, D.; Brady, O.H. The use of uncemented extensively porous-coated femoral components in the management of Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87, 1617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giusti, A.; Hamdy, N.A.; Papapoulos, S.E. Atypical fractures of the femur and bisphosphonate therapy: A systematic review of case/case series studies. Bone 2010, 47, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koh, A.; Guerado, E.; Giannoudis, P.V. Atypical femoral fractures related to bisphosphonate treatment: issues and controversies related to their surgical management. Bone Joint J 2017, 99-B, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Odvina, C.V.; Zerwekh, J.E.; Rao, D.S.; Maalouf, N.; Gottschalk, F.A.; Pak, C.Y. Severely suppressed bone turnover: a potential complication of alendronate therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005, 90, 1294–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nishino, T.; Hyodo, K.; Matsumoto, Y.; Yanagisawa, Y.; Yamazaki, M. Bisphosphonate-related atypical femoral fractures in patients with autoimmune disease treated with glucocorticoids: surgical results for 20 limbs. J Clin Med 2024, 13, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cho, J.W.; Oh, C.W.; Leung, F.; Park, K.C.; Wong, M.K.; Kwek, E.; Kim, H.J.; Oh, J.K. Healing of atypical subtrochanteric femur fractures after cephalomedullary nailing: which factors predict union. J Orthop Trauma 2017, 31, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Black, D.M.; Geiger, E.J.; Eastell, R.; Vittinghoff, E.; Li, B.H.; Ryan, D.S.; Dell, R.M.; Adams, A.L. Atypical femur fracture risk versus fragility fracture prevention with bisphosphonates. N Engl J Med 2020, 383, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byun, S.E.; Lee, K.J.; Shin, W.C.; Moon, N.H.; Kim, C.H. The effect of teriparatide on fracture healing after atypical femoral fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoporos Int 2023, 34, 1323–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, B.W.; Koo, K.H.; Park, Y.S.; Oh, C.W.; Lim, S.J.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, K.J.; Lee, Y.K. Scoring system for identifying impending complete fractures in incomplete atypical femoral fractures. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017, 102, 545–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, D.; Cheng, H.C. Hip Arthroplasty for treatment of atypical femoral fracture with pre-existing hip osteoarthritis. Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation. 2016, 21, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mondanelli, N.; Troiano, E.; Facchini, A.; Ghezzi, R.; Di Meglio, M.; Nuvoli, N.; Peri, G.; Aiuto, P.; Colasanti, G.B.; Giannotti, S. Treatment algorithm of periprosthetic femoral fracturens. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2022, 13, 21514593221097608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewallen, D.G.; Berry, D.J. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty: treatment and results to date. Instr Course Lect 1998, 47, 243–249. [Google Scholar]
- Larson, J.E.; Chao, E.Y.; Fitzgerald, R.H. Bypassing femoral cortical defects with cemented intramedullary stems. J Orthop Res 1991, 9, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panjabi, M.M.; Trumble, T.; Hult, J.E.; Southwick, W.O. Effect of femoral stem length on stress raisers associated with revision hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 1985, 3, 447–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Normal walking, Right | B.W (N)= | 504 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Force | X (N) | Y (N) | Z (N) | Loading point | (%) | Load (N) |
| Hip contact | -54.0 | 32.8 | -229.2 | P0 | 238 | 1199.52 |
| ABD | -58.0 | 4.3 | 86.5 | P1 | 104 | |
| TFL-P | -7.2 | 11.6 | 13.2 | P1 | 19 | |
| TFL-D | 0.5 | -0.7 | -19.0 | P1 | 19 | |
| P1 total force | 64.7 | -15.2 | 80.7 | P1 | 105 | 529.2 |
| VL | 0.9 | -18.5 | -92.9 | P2 | 95 | 478.8 |
| Stair climbing, Right | B.W (N)= | 504 | ||||
| Force | X (N) | Y (N) | Z (N) | Loading point | (%) | Load (N) |
| Hip contact | -59.3 | 60.6 | -236.3 | P0 | 251 | 1265.04 |
| ABD | -70.1 | 28.8 | 84.9 | P1 | ||
| ITT-P | -10.5 | 3.0 | 12.8 | P1 | ||
| ITT-D | 0.5 | -0.8 | -16.8 | P1 | ||
| TFL-P | -3.1 | 4.9 | 2.9 | P1 | ||
| TFL-D | 0.2 | -0.3 | -6.5 | P1 | ||
| P1 total force | 83.0 | -35.6 | 77.3 | P1 | 119 | 599.76 |
| VL | 2.2 | -22.4 | -135.1 | P2 | 137 | 690.48 |
| VM | 8.8 | 39.6 | -267.1 | P3 | 270 | 1360.8 |
| Stem length [mm] | Number of elements |
|---|---|
| Control | 411,681 |
| 90 | 589,149 |
| 100 | 595,689 |
| 110 | 618,600 |
| 120 | 631,146 |
| 130 | 640,215 |
| 140 | 656,649 |
| 150 | 667,911 |
| 160 | 673,071 |
| 170 | 681,366 |
| 180 | 681,891 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).