In vitro influence of stem surface finish and mantle conformity on pressure generation in cemented hip arthroplasty

A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA.

METHODS

Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size.

RESULTS

The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), p = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], p < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], p = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], p = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), p = 0.975).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.

High shear stress amplitude in combination with prolonged stimulus duration determine induction of osteoclast formation by hematopoietic progenitor cells

To date, it is unclear how fluid dynamics stimulate mechanosensory cells to induce an osteoprotective or osteodestructive response. We investigated how murine hematopoietic progenitor cells respond to 2 minutes of dynamic fluid flow stimulation with a precisely controlled sequence of fluid shear stresses. The response was quantified by measuring extracellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP), immunocytochemistry of Piezo1, and sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic Ca²⁺ reticulum ATPase 2 (SERCA2), and by the ability of soluble factors produced by mechanically stimulated cells to modulate osteoclast differentiation. We rejected our initial hypothesis that peak wall shear stress rate determines the response of hematopoietic progenitor cells to dynamic fluid shear stress, as it had only a minor correlation with the abovementioned parameters. Low stimulus amplitudes corresponded to activation of Piezo1, SERCA2, low concentrations of extracellular ATP, and inhibition of osteoclastogenesis and resorption area, while high amplitudes generally corresponded to osteodestructive responses. At a given amplitude (3 Pa) and waveform (square), the duration of individual stimuli (duty cycle) showed a strong correlation with the release of ATP and osteoclast number and resorption area. Collectively, our data suggest that hematopoietic progenitor cells respond in a viscoelastic manner to loading, since a combination of high shear stress amplitude and prolonged duty cycle is needed to trigger an osteodestructive response. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: In case of painful joints or missing teeth, the current intervention is to replace them with an implant to keep a high-quality lifestyle. When exercising or chewing, the cells in the bone around the implant experience mechanical loading. This loading generally supports bone formation to strengthen the bone and prevent breaking, but can also stimulate bone loss when the mechanical loading becomes too high around orthopedic and dental implants. We still do not fully understand how cells in the bone can distinguish between mechanical loading that strengthens or weakens the bone. We cultured cells derived from the bone marrow in the laboratory to test whether the bone loss response depends on (i) how fast a mechanical load is applied (rate), (ii) how intense the mechanical load is (amplitude), or (iii) how long each individual loading stimulus is applied (duration). We mimicked mechanical loading as it occurs in the body, by applying very precisely controlled flow of fluid over the cells. We found that a mechanosensitive receptor Piezo1 was activated by a low amplitude stimulus, which usually strengthens the bone. The potential inhibitor of Piezo1, namely SERCA2, was only activated by a low amplitude stimulus. This happened regardless of the rate of application. At a constant high amplitude, a longer duration of the stimulus enhanced the bone-weakening response. Based on these results we deduce that a high loading amplitude tends to be bone weakening, and the longer this high amplitude persists, the worse it is for the bone.