Abstract
Introduction
Improper seating during head/stem assembly can lead to unintended micromotion between the femoral head and stem taper—resulting in fretting corrosion and implant failure.1 There is no consensus—either by manufacturers or by the surgical community—on what head/stem taper assembly method maximizes modular junction stability in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A 2018 clinical survey2 found that orthopedic surgeons prefer applying one strike or three, subsequent strikes when assembling head/stem taper. However, it has been suggested that additional strikes may lead to decreased interference strength. Additionally, the taper surface finish—micro-grooves—has been shown to affect taper interference strength and may be influenced by assembly method. The objective of this study was to employ a novel, micro-grooved finite element (FEA) model of the hip taper interface and assess the role of head/stem assembly method—one vs three strikes—on modular taper junction stability.
Methods
A two-dimensional, axisymmetric FEA model representative of a CoCrMo femoral head taper and Ti6Al4V stem taper was created using median geometrical measurements taken from over 100 retrieved implants.3 Surface finish—micro-grooves—of the head/stem taper were modeled using a sinusoidal function with amplitude and period corresponding to retrieval measurements of micro-groove height and spacing, respectively. Two stem taper micro-groove geometries— “rough” and “smooth”—were modeled corresponding to the median and 5th percentile height and spacing measurements from retrievals. All models had a 3' (0.05°), proximal-locked angular mismatch between the tapers.
To simulate implant assembly during surgery, multiple dynamic loads (4kN, 8kN, and 12kN) were applied to the femoral head taper in a sequence of one or three strikes. The input load profile (Figure 1) used for both cases was collected from surgeons assembling an experimental setup with a three-dimensional load sensor. Models were assembled and meshed in ABAQUS Standard (v 6.17) using four-node linear hexahedral, reduced integration elements. Friction was modeled between the stem and head taper using surface-to-surface formulation with penalty contact (µ=0.2). A total of 12 implicit, dynamic simulations (3 loads × 2 assembly sequences × 2 stem taper surface finishes) were run, with 2 static simulations at 4kN for evaluating inertial effects. Outcome variables included contact area, contact pressure, equivalent plastic strain, and pull-off force.
Results
As expected, increasing assembly load led to increased contact area, pressures, and plasticity for both taper finishes. Rough tapers exhibited less total contact area at each loading level as compared to the smooth taper. Contact pressures were relatively similar across the stem taper finishes, except the 3-strike smooth taper, which exhibited the lowest contact pressures (Figure 2) and pull-off forces. The models assembled with one strike exhibited the greatest contact pressures, pull-off forces, and micro-groove plastic deformation (Figure 3).
Conclusion
Employing 1-strike loads led to greater contact areas, pressures, pull-off forces, and plastic deformation of the stem taper micro-grooves as compared to tapers assembled with three strikes. Residual energy may be lost with subsequent assembly strikes, suggesting that one, firm strike maximizes taper assembly mechanics. These models will be used to identify the optimal design factors and impaction method to maximize stability of modular taper junctions.
For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly.
