Abstract
Introduction
One of the known mechanisms which could contribute to the failure of total hip replacements (THR) is edge contact. Failures associated with edge contact include rim damage and lysis due to altered loading and torques. Recent study on four THR patients showed that the inclusion of pelvic motions in a contact model increased the risk of edge contact in some patients. The aim of current study was to determine whether pelvic motions have the same effect on contact location for a larger patient cohort and determine the contribution of each of the pelvic rotations to this effect.
Methods
Gait data was acquired from five male and five female unilateral THR patients using a ten camera Vicon system (Oxford Metrics, UK) interfaced with twin force plates (AMTI) and using a CAST marker set. All patients had good surgical outcomes, confirmed by patient-reported outcomes and were considered well-functioning, based on elective walking speed. Joint contact forces and pelvic motions were obtained from the AnyBody modelling system (AnyBody Technologies, DK). Only gait cycle regions with available force plate data were considered. A finite element model of a 32mm head on a featureless hemispherical polyethylene cup, 0.5mm radial clearance, was used to obtain the contact area from the contact force. A bespoke computational tool was used to analyse patients' gait profiles with and without pelvic motions. The risk of edge contact was measured as a “centre proximity angle” between the cup pole and centre of the contact area, and “edge proximity angle” between the cup pole and the furthest contact area point away from the pole. Pelvic tilt, drop and internal-external rotation were considered one at a time and in combinations.
Results
In eight out of 10 patients, the addition of pelvic motions decreased the risk of edge contact during toe-off. There was up to 6° reduction in the proximity angles when pelvic motions were introduced to the gait cycle. In six out of 10 patients, the addition of pelvic motions resulted in an increase in the risk of edge contact during heel-strike with up to 6° increase in the proximity angles. For all patients where these effects were seen, sagittal pelvic tilt was a substantial contributor.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that pelvic motion play an important role in contact location in THR bearings during loading phase. Both static and dynamic pelvic tilt contribute to the variability in the risk of edge contact. Further tests on larger patient cohorts are required to confirm the trends observed. The outcomes of this study suggest that pre-clinical mechanical and tribological testing of THRs should consider the role of pelvic motion. The outcomes also have implications for establishing surgical positioning safe zones, which are currently based only on risk of dislocation and severe impingement.
