Purpose: The mechanical behavior of human scapholunate ligaments is not described well in the literature regarding torsion. Presently, intact scapholunate specimens were mechanically tested in torsion to determine if any tensile forces were generated as a result.

Method: Scapholunate specimens (n=19) were harvested and inspected visually. Scaphoid and lunate bones were potted in square chambers using epoxy cement. The interposing ligaments remained exposed. Specimens were mounted in a specially designed test jig and remained at a fixed axial length during testing. Using angular displacement control, ligaments were subjected to a torsional motion regime that included cyclic preconditioning (25 cycles, 1 Hz, triangular wave, 5 deg max), ramp-up to 15 deg at 180 deg/min, stress relaxation for 120 sec duration, ramp-down to 0 angulation at 180 deg/min, rest period for 5–10 minutes, and torsion-to-failure at 180 deg/min. Torque and axial tension were monitored simultaneously.

Results: Tests showed a coupled linear relationship between applied torsion and the resultant tensile forces generated for the ligament during ramp-up (Torsion/Tension Ratio = 38.86 +/− 29.00 mm, Linearity Coefficient R-squared = 0.89 +/− 0.15, n=19), stress relaxation (Ratio = 23.43 +/− 15.84 mm, R-squared = 0.90 +/− 0.09, n=16), and failure tests (Ratio = 38.81 +/− 26.39 mm, R-squared = 0.77 +/− 0.20, n=16). No statistically significant differences were detected between the Torsion/Tension ratios (p=0.13) or between the linearity (R-squared) of the best-fit lines (p> 0.085).

Conclusion: A strong linear relationship between applied torsion and resulting tensile forces for the ligament was exhibited during all testing phases. This may suggest that there is interplay between torsion and tension in both the stabilization of the scapholunate ligament during normal physiological motion and during resistance to injury processes. This is the first report in the literature of the coupling of torsion with tension for the scapholunate ligament.

Total hip replacement in the young active patient remains one of the major challenges in orthopaedics today. The use of ultra high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene acetabular liners is known to cause polyethylene wear related osteolysis, the major limiting factor in its use in the younger active patient. Modern alumina ceramic articulations have been developed in order to reduce wear and avoid polyethylene debris. This prospective randomized long-term study aims to compare the outcome between an alumina ceramic-on-ceramic (CC) articulation with a ceramic on UHMW polyethylene articulation (CP). In the younger active patient, is one option superior to the other with regard to patient satisfaction, osteolysis and implant longevity?

56 hips in 55 patients with mean age 42.2 (range 19–56) each received uncemented components (Wright Medical) and a 28mm alumina head with acetabular liner selected via sealed envelope randomization following anesthetic induction. Subsequent regular clinical and radiologic follow up measured patient outcome scores and noted any radiological changes.

26 CP hips and 30 CC hips were evaluated. One failure required revision in each group. Mean St Michael’s outcome score for each group with up to 10 years follow-up (median 8 years, range 1–10) was 22.8 and 22.9 respectively (p=0.057). Radiographs with a minimum 5 years post-operative follow-up were analyzed in 42 hips (23 CC and 19 CP). Radiolucency of all 3 acetabular zones was identified in one of the CP hips. There was no evidence of osteolysis or loosening identified in the remaining hips. The mean time of wear measurement for the CC group was 8.3 years (SD 1.3, Range 4.8–10.1 years) and for the CP group was 8.1 years (SD 0.9, Range 6.1–9.2 years)(p=0.471). Wear was identified in all but one of the CP replacements but only 12 of 23 CC articulations. The mean wear for the CC group was 0.14 mm (SD 0.16, Range 0–0.48 mm) and for the CP group was 0.89 mm (SD 0.6, Range 0–2.43 mm)(p< 0.001). Extrapolating the annual wear rate from these figures, the respective wear is 0.02mm for the CC group compared to 0.11mm per year for the CP group.

To our knowledge this is the first long term randomized trial comparing in vivo ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene hip articulations. Other than significantly greater wear in the polyethylene group there was no significant difference in long-term outcome scores between the two groups with up to 10 years of follow-up. The use of a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing is a safe and durable option in the young patient avoiding the concerns of active metal ions and osteolytic polyethylene debris. These patients remain under review.

The computed neck-shaft angle and the size of the femoral component were recorded in 100 consecutive hip resurfacings using imageless computer-navigation and compared with the angle measured before operation and with actual component implanted. The reliability of the registration was further analysed using ten cadaver femora. The mean absolute difference between the measured and navigated neck-shaft angle was 16.3° (0° to 52°). Navigation underestimated the measured neck-shaft angle in 38 patients and the correct implant size in 11. Registration of the cadaver femora tended to overestimate the correct implant size and provided a low level of repeatability in computing the neck-shaft angle.

Prudent pre-operative planning is advisable for use in conjunction with imageless navigation since misleading information may be registered intraoperatively, which could lead to inappropriate sizing and positioning of the femoral component in hip resurfacing.

To assess the accuracy of plain digitised radiographic images for measurement of neck-shaft and stem-shaft angles in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Fifteen patients having undergone hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) were selected at random. Digital radiographs were analyzed by three observers. Each observer measured the femoral neck-shaft angles (NSA) of the pre-operative and stem-shaft angles (SSA) of the postoperative radiographs on two separate occasions spanning one week. The effect of femur position on SSA measured by digital radiographs was also analyzed. A BHR prosthesis was cemented into a third generation Sawbone composite femur. Radiographs were taken with the synthetic specimen positioned in varying angles of both flexion and external rotation in increments of 10° ranging from 0° to 90°.

The mean intraobserver difference in measured angle was 3.13° (SD 2.37°, 95% CI +/−4.64°) for the NSA group and 1.49° (SD 2.28°, 95% CI +/−4.47°) for the SSA group. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the NSA group was 0.616 and for the SSA group was 0.855. Flexion of the synthetic femur of twenty degrees resulted in a five degree discrepancy in measured SSA and flexion of forty degrees resulted in a thirteen degree discrepancy. External rotation of the synthetic specimen of twenty and forty degrees resulted in a three and nine degree discrepancy in measured SSA, respectively.

Patient malposition during radiographic imaging can contribute to erroneous NSA and SSA results. Significant intra- and inter-observer variation was noted in the measurement of neck shaft angle however, variation was less marked for measurement of stem shaft angle.

We aimed to establish if radiological parameters, dual energy x-ray absorbtiometry (DEXA) and quantitative CT (qCT) could predict the risk of sustaining a femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing.

Twenty-one unilateral fresh frozen femurs were used. Each femur had a plain AP radiograph, DEXA scan and quantitative CT scan. Femurs were then prepared for a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing femoral component with the stem shaft angle equal to the native neck shaft angle. The femoral component was then cemented onto the prepared femoral head. No notching of the femoral neck occurred in any specimens. A repeat radiograph was performed to confirm the stem shaft angle. The femurs were then potted in a position of single leg stance and tested in the axial direction to failure using an Instron mechanical tester. The load to failure was then analysed with the radiological, DEXA and qCT parameters using multiple regression.

The strongest correlation with the load to failure values was the total mineral content of the femoral neck at the head/neck junction using qCT r= 0.74 (p< 0.001). This improved to r=0.76 (p< 0.001) when neck width was included in the analysis. The total bone mineral density measurement from the DEXA scan showed a correlation with the load to failure of r=0.69 (p< 0.001). Radiological parameters only moderately correlated with the load to failure values; neck width (r=0.55), head diameter (r= 0.49) and femoral off-set (r=0.3).

This study suggests that a patient’s risk of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing is most strongly correlated with total mineral content at the head/neck junction and bone mineral density. This biomechanical data suggests that the risk of post-operative femoral neck fracture may be most accurately identified with a pre-operative quantitative CT scan through the head/neck junction combined with the femoral neck width.

We aimed to establish if radiological parameters, dual energy x-ray absorbtiometry (DEXA) and quantitative CT (qCT) could predict the risk of sustaining a femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing. 21 unilateral fresh frozen femurs were used. Each femur had a plain AP radiograph, DEXA scan and quantitative CT scan. Femurs were then prepared for a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing femoral component with the stem shaft angle equal to the native neck shaft angle. The femoral component was then cemented onto the prepared femoral head. No notching of the femoral neck occurred in any specimens. A repeat radiograph was performed to confirm the stem shaft angle. The femurs were then potted in a position of single leg stance and tested in the axial direction to failure using an Instron mechanical tester. The load to failure was then analysed with the radiological, DEXA and qCT parameters using multiple regression. The strongest correlation with the load to failure values was the total mineral content of the femoral neck at the head/neck junction using qCT r= 0.74 (p< 0.001). This improved to r=0.76 (p< 0.001) when neck width was included in the analysis. The total bone mineral density measurement from the DEXA scan showed a correlation with the load to failure of r=0.69 (p< 0.001). Radiological parameters only moderately correlated with the load to failure values; neck width (r=0.55), head diameter (r= 0.49) and femoral off-set (r=0.3). This study suggests that a patient’s risk of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing is most strongly correlated with total mineral content at the head/neck junction and bone mineral density. This biomechanical data suggests that the risk of post-operative femoral neck fracture may be most accurately identified with a pre-operative quantitative CT scan through the head/neck junction combined with the femoral neck width.

Introduction: We aimed to examine the effect of neck notching during hip resurfacing on the strength of the proximal femur.

Methods: Third generation composite femurs that have been shown to replicate the biomechanical properties of human bone were utilised. Imageless computer navigation was used to position the initial guide wire during head preparation. Six specimens were prepared without a superior notch being made in the neck of the femur, six were prepared in an inferiorly translated position to cause a 2mm notch in the superior femoral neck and six were prepared with a 5mm notch. All specimens had radiographs taken to ensure that the stem shaft angle was kept constant. The specimens were then loaded to failure in the axial direction with an Instron mechanical tester.

A three dimensional femoral finite element model was constructed and molded with a femoral component constructed from the dimensions of a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. The model was created with a superior femoral neck notch of increasing depths.

Results: The 2mm notched group (mean load to failure 4034N) were significantly weaker than the un-notched group (mean load to failure 5302N) when tested to failure (p=0.017). The 5mm notched group (mean load to failure 3121N) were also significantly weaker than the un-notched group (p=0.0003) and the 2mm notched group (p=0.046). All fractures initiated at the superior aspect of the neck, at the component bone interface. The finite element model revealed increasing Von Mises stresses with increasing notch depth.

Discussion: A superior notch of 2mm in the femoral neck weakens the proximal femur by 24% and a 5mm notch weakens it by 41%. This study provides biomechanical evidence that notching of the femoral neck may lead to an increased risk of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing due to increasing stresses in the region of the notch.

We have investigated the accuracy of placement of the femoral component using imageless navigation in 100 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings. Pre-operative templating determined the native neck-shaft angle and planned stem-shaft angle of the implant. The latter were verified post-operatively using digital anteroposterior unilateral radiographs of the hip.

The mean neck-shaft angle determined before operation was 132.7° (118° to 160°). The mean planned stem-shaft angle was a relative valgus alignment of 9.7° (sd 2.6). The stem-shaft angle after operation differed from that planned by a mean of 2.8° (sd 2.0) and in 86% of cases the final angle measured within ± 5° of that planned. We had no instances of notching of the neck or varus alignment of the implant in our series. A learning curve was observed in the time taken for navigation, but not for accurate placement of the implant.

Navigation in hip resurfacing may afford the surgeon a reliable and accurate method of placement of the femoral component.

A total of 20 pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver femurs were assigned to four alignment groups consisting of relative varus (10° and 20°) and relative valgus (10° and 20°), 75 composite femurs of two neck geometries were also used. In both the cadaver and the composite femurs, placing the component in 20° of valgus resulted in a significant increase in load to failure. Placing the component in 10° of valgus had no appreciable effect on increasing the load to failure except in the composite femurs with varus native femoral necks. Specimens in 10° of varus were significantly weaker than the neutrally-aligned specimens.

The results suggest that retention of the intact proximal femoral strength occurs at an implant angulation of ≥ 142°. However, the benefit of extreme valgus alignment may be outweighed in clinical practice by the risk of superior femoral neck notching, which was avoided in this study.

Introduction: It has been suggested that femoral component alignment in the coronal plane affects the risk of sustaining femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing. Previous literature suggests that increasing the stem shaft angle to an extreme valgus position produces the most favourable biomechanical properties following femoral component insertion. We examined the effects of femoral component alignment during hip resurfacing on proximal femur strength.

Methods: 3^rd generation composite femurs shown to replicate biomechanical properties of human bone were used. The bones were secured in a position of single leg stance and tested with an Instron mechanical tester. Imageless computer navigation was used to position the guide wire during femoral head preparation. Specimens were placed in 115, 125 and 135 degrees of stem shaft angulation. No notching was made in the femoral neck during head preparation. The femoral components were cemented in place. Radiographs were taken ensuring that stem shaft angles were correct. Specimens were loaded to failure in the axial direction.

Results: A component position of 115 degrees compared to 125 degrees reduced load to failure from 5475N to 3198N (p=0.009). A position of 135 degrees (5713N) compared to 125 degrees (5475N) did not significantly alter the load to failure (p=0.347). Component positioning at a stem shaft angle below 125 degrees resulted in a significant reduction in strength of the proximal femur. Placement of the component at 115 degrees reduced the load to failure by 42%.

Discussion: Our findings suggest that a varus orientation may be at risk for causing femoral neck fracture. The advantages of increasing valgus angle beyond 125 degrees may not provide as much reduction in the incidence of femoral neck fracture as previously suggested, particularly when considering the inherent risk of femoral neck notching in these positions.

Introduction: Notching of the femoral neck during preparation of the femur during hip resurfacing has been associated with an increased risk of femoral neck fracture. We aimed to evaluate this with the use of a finite element model.

Methods: A three dimensional femoral model was used and molded with a femoral component constructed from the dimensions of a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Multiple constructs were made with the component inferiorly translated in order to cause a notch in the superior femoral neck. The component angulation was kept constant. Once constructed the model was imported into the Ansys finite element model software for analysis. Elements within the femoral model were assigned different material properties depending on cortical and cancellous bone distributions. Von Misses stresses were evaluated near the notches and compared in each of the cases.

Results: In the un-notched case the maximum Von Mises stress was only 40MPa. However, with the formation of a 1mm notch the stress rose to 144MPa and in the 4 mm notch the stress increased to 423MPa. These values demonstrated that a 1mm notch increased the maximum stress by 361% while a 4mm notch increased the maximum stress by 1061%.

Discussion: This study demonstrated that causing a notch in the superior femoral neck dramatically increases the stress within the femoral neck. This may result in the weakening of the femoral neck and potentially predispose it to subsequent femoral neck fracture. The data suggests that even a small notch of 1mm may be detrimental in weakening the femoral neck by dramatically increasing the stress in the superior neck. This study suggests that any femoral neck notching should be avoided during hip resurfacing.

Introduction: It has been suggested that notching of the femoral neck during hip resurfacing weakens the proximal femur and predisposes to femoral neck fracture. We aimed to examine the effect of neck notching during hip resurfacing on the strength of the proximal femur.

Methods: 3^rd generation composite femurs that have been shown to replicate the biomechanical properties of human bone were utilised. The bone was secured in a position of single leg stance and tested with an Instron mechanical tester. Imageless computer navigation was used to position the initial guide wire during head preparation. Six specimens were prepared without a superior notch being made in the neck of the femur, six were prepared in an inferiorly translated position to cause a 2mm notch in the superior femoral neck and six were prepared with a 5mm notch. The femoral component was then cemented in place. All specimens had radiographs taken to ensure that the stem shaft angle was kept constant. The specimens were then loaded to failure in the axial direction.

Results: The 2mm notched group (mean load to failure 4034N) were significantly weaker than the un-notched group (mean load to failure 5302N) when tested to failure (p=0.017). The 5mm notched group (mean load to failure 3121N) were also significantly weaker than the un-notched group (p=0.0003) and the 2mm notched group (p=0.046). All fractures initiated at the superior aspect of the neck, at the component bone interface. All components were positioned in the same coronal alignment +/−2 degrees.

Discussion: A superior notch of 2mm in the femoral neck weakens the proximal femur by 24% and a 5mm notch weakens it by 41%. This study provides biomechanical evidence that notching of the femoral neck may lead to an increased risk of femoral neck fracture following hip resurfacing.