Vibratory and conventional impaction of acetabular components into porcine acetabula

Listen to Simon and Amy discuss the paper 'Vibratory and conventional impaction of acetabular components into porcine acetabula' published in the April 2025 issue of Bone & Joint Research.

Click here to read the paper.

Be the first to know when the next episode is live! Follow our social media accounts, @BoneJointPortal and @BoneJointRes on X, and @bonejointres on Instagram for updates!

Transcript

[00:00:00] Welcome back to another episode of AI Talks with Bone & Joint from the publishers of Bone & Joint Research. Today we're discussing the fascinating paper 'Vibratory and conventional impaction of acetabular components into porcine acetabula', published in April 2025 by Y Nikki, G Huber, K Behzadi, and M Morlock. I'm Simon, and I'm joined by my co-host Amy.

Hello Simon. Lovely to be here. This study is quite intriguing because it tackles the challenge of achieving primary implant stability during uncemented hip replacement surgeries while minimizing bone damage. I'm keen to delve into the details.

Indeed. Let's begin with the research background. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether a vibratory implant insertion method could effectively reduce the impaction force needed to seat acetabular components compared to a conventional method. This is particularly relevant because high impaction forces can heighten the risk of periprosthetic fractures and implant loosening.

[00:01:00] Precisely. The hypothesis was that vibratory impaction would benefit from the viscoelastic properties of bone, thus reducing the necessary force and lessening the risk of bone fractures. The researchers used porcine acetabular as their model, which is common due to its physiological similarities to human bone, quite right, and the methodology is rather thorough.

They used fresh-frozen porcine acetabula, defrosted and prepped for the experiment. The acetabula were mounted in metal pots to ensure correct alignment during the impaction process. They tested two types of impaction methods: the established one Hertz method using single impacts per second and a 60 Hertz vibratory method.

They also evaluated two different nominal press-fits line to line, and one millimeter nominal undersized cavities. The key metrics measured were the impaction force, the remaining polar gap, and the lever-out moment, which indicates the primary stability of the implant.

Now onto the results, which were [00:02:00] rather fascinating. The vibratory impaction method required nearly 40% lower impaction forces at both press-fit levels compared to the conventional method. However, this did come at the cost of primary stability, which was lower for the vibratory method.

Indeed, Simon. The reduced impaction force is noteworthy because it suggests a lower risk of bone fractures during implantation. However, the downside was that the vibratory method did not achieve complete seating at the nominal one millimeter press-fit, compromising primary stability. The study mentions that the polar gaps were twice as high for the 60 Hertz method compared to the one Hertz method in the one millimeter press-fit group. This is critical because polar gaps beyond two millimeters carry a higher risk of early migration, which could lead to implant failure.

Precisely and this brings us to the clinical implications. While vibratory insertion reduces the risk of bone damage, the reduced primary stability might be a concern, particularly in patients with osteoporosis or other conditions that [00:03:00] weaken bone quality.

Future adaptations in the vibratory method might include adjusting the nominal press-fit or other parameters to improve stability. The study also acknowledged its limitations such as using porcine rather than human bone, which may not fully represent the clinical scenario. Additionally, the study didn't consider the anatomical angles of the acetabulum during implantation, which could influence the results and not to forget the differences in the internal mechanisms of the two impaction devices might also have impacted the outcomes. The vibratory methods, higher frequency means more strokes in a given time, potentially affecting the bone implant interface behavior.

Absolutely. To sum up the study provides valuable insights into how vibratory methods could reduce fracture risks, but also highlights the need for further research to tackle stability concerns. Future studies could explore developing devices that allow for independent adjustments and frequency and force to optimize both safety and stability.

Well, summarized [00:04:00] Simon. This study opens new avenues for enhancing hip replacement techniques. Emphasizing that while reducing bone damage is crucial, it shouldn't come at the cost of implant stability. Looking forward to further developments in this field.

Me too, Amy. Thanks to everyone for tuning into this episode of AI Talks with Bone & Joint. Stay tuned for more deep dives into groundbreaking research. Until next time, this is Simon and Amy signing off.