In Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA), the femoral head is removed and an implant is inserted in the femur. The implant works as a substitute for the femoral head. The purpose of this project is to run simulations to investigate if perforated stem is as strong as or stronger than non-perforated stem. The simulations were performed to investigate on whether lessening the depth of the cement in THA could compromise the success rate of the surgery. Next step, the best implant will be fabricated using a 3-D printer. Based on simulation analysis, implants with higher perforated depths had higher maximum deformations and shear stresses but lower maximum equivalent (von Mises) stresses recorded. For the first case, the relative percentage differences, in cement depth of 74 mm, of the non-perforated, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm perforated implants; in maximum total deformation were 16.63%, 16.90%, and 16.30%, respectively. Meanwhile, in maximum shear stress, the relative percentage differences were -6.01%, -8.39%, and -7.06%, respectively. In maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress, the relative percentage differences were -0.34%, -1.34%, and -1.42%, respectively. In the second case, the relative percentage differences, in cement depth of 104 mm, of the non-perforated, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm perforated implants in maximum total deformation were 6.96%, 4.17%, and 7.01%, respectively. In maximum shear stress, the relative percentage differences were 3.64%, 1.01%, and 2.47%. In maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress, the relative percentage differences were -0.34%, -1.34%, and -1.42%. For the third case, the relative percentage differences, in cement depth, of 134 mm of the non-perforated, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm perforated implants in maximum total deformation were 9.76%, 9.88%, and 10.09%, respectively. In maximum shear stress, the relative percentage differences were 3.61%, 0.98%, and 2.45%. In maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress, the relative percentage differences were -0.34%, -1.34%, and -1.42%. The percentage difference in maximum deformation and maximum shear stress were relatively high especially in maximum shear stress but the opposite was true in maximum equivalent (von Mises) stress. The maximum total deformation and shear stress therefore had influenced greatly on the selection of the best implant. The implant with perforated depths of 3 mm was selected as the best implant and was fabricated using a 3-D printer.

1.
D. P.
Byrne
,
K. J.
Mulhall
and
J. F.
Baker
, “Anatomy & Biomechanics of the Hip,” in
Open Sport. Med. J.
,
4
(
1
), (
2010
), pp.
51
57
.
2.
C.
Schmidler
, “
Hip Anatomy, Pictures, Function, Problems & Treatment
,” in
HealthPages.org
, (
2019
).
3.
S.
Kishner
and
M.
Chowdhry
, “
Hip Joint Anatomy
,” in
Medscape
, (
2017
).
4.
D.
Foulk
and
B.
Mullis
, “Hip Dislocation: Evaluation and Management,” in
J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg.
,
18
(
4
), (
2010
), pp.
199
209
.
5.
H. M.
Ji
,
K. C.
Kim
,
Y. K.
Lee
,
Y. C.
Ha
and
K. H.
Koo
, “Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Posterior Approach and a Modified Lateral Approach,” in
J. Arthroplasty
,
27
(
3
), (
2012
), pp.
378
385
.
6.
P. I.
Tornetta
and
H. R.
Mostafavi
, “Hip Dislocation: Current Treatment Regimens,” in
J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg.
,
5
(
1
), (
1997
), pp.
27
36
.
7.
O.
Güler
,
S.
Öztürk
,
F. T.
Özgezmez
and
M. H.
Çerçi
, “Comparison of Supine and Lateral Decubitus Positions for Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Direct Lateral Approach in Overweight and Obese Patients,” in
Biomed Res. Int.
,
2020
, (
2020
), pp.
1
5
.
8.
W. H.
Harris
and
C. B.
Sledge
, “Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement: Review,” in
N. Engl. J. Med.
,
323
(
11
), (
1990
), pp.
725
731
.
9.
Y. S.
Yoon
,
T. R.
Oxland
,
A. J.
Hodgson
,
C. P.
Duncan
,
B. A.
Masri
and
D.
Choi
, “Mechanical aspects of degree of cement bonding and implant wedge effect,” in
Clin. Biomech.
,
23
(
9
), (
2008
), pp.
1141
1147
.
10.
O.
Jones
, “
The Hip Joint
,” in
TeachMe Anatomy
, (
2019
).
11.
T.
Eisler
,
O.
Svensson
,
A.
Tengström
and
E.
Elmstedt
, “Patient Expectation and Satisfaction in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty,” in
J. Arthroplasty
,
17
(
4
), (
2002
), pp.
457
462
.
12.
G.
Labek
,
M.
Thaler
,
W.
Janda
,
M.
Agreiter
and
B.
Stöckl
, “Revision rates after total joint replacement: Cumulative Results From Worldwide Joint Register Datasets,” in
J. Bone Jt. Surg.
,
93
(
3
), (
2011
), pp.
293
297
.
13.
A. A.
Edidin
,
P. O.
Merritt
,
B. H.
Hack
and
M. T.
Manley
, “A ported, proximally-cemented femoral stem for total hip arthroplasty,” in
J. Bone Jt. Surg.
,
80
(
5
), (
1998
), pp.
869
875
.
14.
R.
Pivec
,
A. J.
Johnson
,
S. C.
Mears
and
M. A.
Mont
, “Hip arthroplasty,” in
Lancet
,
380
(
9855
), (
2012
), pp.
1768
1777
.
15.
M.
Viceconti
,
L.
Bellingeri
,
L.
Cristofolini
and
A.
Toni
, “A comparative study on different methods of automatic mesh generation of human femurs,” in
Med. Eng. Phys.
,
20
(
1
), (
1998
), pp.
1
10
.
16.
J. P.
Little
,
F.
Taddei
,
M.
Viceconti
,
D. W.
Murray
and
H. S.
Gill
, “Changes in femur stress after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: Response to physiological loads,” in
Clin. Biomech.
,
22
(
4
), (
2007
), pp.
440
448
.
17.
S.
Shuib
,
B. B.
Sahari
,
W. S.
Voon
and
M.
Arumugam
, “Finite elemental analysis of outer and inner surfaces of the proximal half of an intact femur,” in
Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs
,
26
(
2
), (
2012
), pp.
103
106
.
18.
H. E.-D.
El’Shiekh
, “
Finite Element Simulation of Hip Joint Replacement under Static and Dynamic Loading
,” Ph.D thesis,
Dublin City University
,
2002
.
19.
K. N.
Chethan
,
N. Shyamasunder
Bhat
,
M.
Zuber
and
B. Satish
Shenoy
, “Finite element analysis of different hip implant designs along with femur under static loading conditions,” in
J. Biomed. Phys. Eng.
,
9
(
5
), (
2019
), pp.
507
516
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.