Show simple item record

contributor authorA. B. Lennon
contributor authorP. J. Prendergast
date accessioned2017-05-09T00:04:10Z
date available2017-05-09T00:04:10Z
date copyrightDecember, 2001
date issued2001
identifier issn0148-0731
identifier otherJBENDY-26209#623_1.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/124778
description abstractStress analysis of the cement fixation of orthopaedic implants to bone is frequently carried out using finite element analysis. However, the stress distribution in the cement layer is usually intricate, and it is difficult to report it in a way that facilitates comparison of implants for pre-clinical testing. To study this problem, and make recommendations for stress reporting, a finite element analysis of a hip prosthesis implanted into a synthetic composite femur is developed. Three cases are analyzed: a fully bonded implant, a debonded implant, and a debonded implant where the cement is removed distal to the stem tip. In addition to peak stresses, and contour and vector plots, a stressed volume and probability-of-failure analysis is reported. It is predicted that the peak stress is highest for the debonded stem, and that removal of the distal cement more than halves this peak stress. This would suggest that omission of the distal cement is good for polished prostheses (as practiced for the Exeter design). However, if the percentage of cement stressed above a certain threshold (say 3 MPa) is considered, then the removal of distal cement is shown to be disadvantageous because a higher volume of cement is stressed to above the threshold. Vector plots clearly demonstrate the different load transfer for bonded and debonded prostheses: A bonded stem generates maximum tensile stresses in the longitudinal direction, whereas a debonded stem generates most tensile stresses in the hoop direction, except near the tip where tensile longitudinal stresses occur due to subsidence of the stem. Removal of the cement distal to the tip allows greater subsidence but alleviates these large stresses at the tip, albeit at the expense of increased hoop stresses throughout the mantle. It is concluded that a thorough analysis of cemented implants should not report peak stress, which can be misleading, but rather stressed volume, and that vector plots should be reported if a precise analysis of the load transfer mechanism is required.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleEvaluation of Cement Stresses in Finite Element Analyses of Cemented Orthopaedic Implants
typeJournal Paper
journal volume123
journal issue6
journal titleJournal of Biomechanical Engineering
identifier doi10.1115/1.1412452
journal fristpage623
journal lastpage628
identifier eissn1528-8951
keywordsStress
keywordsCements (Adhesives)
keywordsFinite element analysis
keywordsOrthopedics
keywordsFailure
keywordsProbability AND Prostheses
treeJournal of Biomechanical Engineering:;2001:;volume( 123 ):;issue: 006
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record