Advertisement

A Biomechanical Study on the Use of Curved Drilling Technique for Treatment of Osteonecrosis of Femoral Head

  • Mahsan BakhtiarinejadEmail author
  • Farshid Alambeigi
  • Alireza Chamani
  • Mathias Unberath
  • Harpal Khanuja
  • Mehran Armand
Conference paper

Abstract

Osteonecrosis occurs due to the loss of blood supply to the bone, leading to spontaneous death of the trabecular bone. Delayed treatment of the involved patients results in collapse of the femoral head, which leads to a need for total hip arthroplasty surgery. Core decompression, as the most popular technique for treatment of the osteonecrosis, includes removal of the lesion area by drilling a straight tunnel to the lesion, debriding the dead bone and replacing it with bone substitutes. However, there are two drawbacks for this treatment method. First, due to the rigidity of the instruments currently used during core decompression, lesions cannot be completely removed and/or excessive healthy bone may also be removed with the lesion. Second, the use of bone substitutes, despite its biocompatibility and osteoconductivity, may not provide sufficient mechanical strength and support for the bone. To address these shortcomings, a novel robot-assisted curved core decompression (CCD) technique is introduced to provide surgeons with direct access to the lesions causing minimal damage to the healthy bone. In this study, with the aid of finite element (FE) simulations, we investigate biomechanical performance of core decompression using the curved drilling technique in the presence of normal gait loading. In this regard, we compare the result of the CCD using bone substitutes and flexible implants with other conventional core decompression techniques. The study finding shows that the maximum principal stress occurring at the superior domain of the neck is smaller in the CCD techniques (i.e., 52.847 MPa) compared to the other core decompression methods; furthermore, the peak value of normal stress at the interface for the CCD model is substantially smaller than traditional and advanced core decompression techniques (89% and 76%, respectively). FE results demonstrate the superior performance of CCD compared to the other approaches without any compromise to patient’s safety and markedly reducing the risk of femoral fracture in the postoperative phase for normal gait loading.

Keywords

Osteonecrosis AVN Core decompression Curved drilling Finite element method Biomechanical analysis Stress Strain Femoral fracture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01EB016703 and R01EB023939. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Mont MA (1999) Symptomatic multifocal osteonecrosis: a multicenter study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lutz A et al (2011) Numerical studies on alternative therapies for femoral head necrosis. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 10(5):627–640MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nishii T et al (2002) Significance of lesion size and location in the prediction of collapse of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a new three-dimensional quantification using magnetic resonance imaging. J Orthop Res 20(1):130–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganz R, Büchler U (1983) Overview of attempts to revitalize the dead head in aseptic necrosis of the femoral head—osteotomy and revascularization. Hip:296, 296–305Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee MS et al (2008) Elevated intraosseous pressure in the intertrochanteric region is associated with poorer results in osteonecrosis of the femoral head treated by multiple drilling. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(7):852–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Babhulkar S (2009) Osteonecrosis of femoral head: treatment by core decompression and vascular pedicle grafting. Indian J Orthop 43(1):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsao AK et al (2005) Biomechanical and clinical evaluations of a porous tantalum implant for the treatment of early-stage osteonecrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:22–27Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landgraeber S et al (2013) Advanced core decompression, a new treatment option of avascular necrosis of the femoral head–a first follow-up. J Tissue Eng Regen Med 7(11):893–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tran TN et al (2016) Effect of the stiffness of bone substitutes on the biomechanical behaviour of femur for core decompression. Med Eng Phys 38(9):911–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alambeigi F et al (2017) A curved-drilling approach in core decompression of the femoral head osteonecrosis using a continuum manipulator. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett 2(3):1480–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alambeigi F, Bakhtiarinejad M, Azizi A, Hegeman R, Iordachita I, Khanuja H, Armand M (2018) Inroads toward robot-assisted internal fixation of bone fractures using a bendable medical screw and the curved drilling technique. In: Proceedings of IEEE RAS/EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics (BioRob), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilkening P, Alambeigi F, Murphy RJ, Taylor RH, Armand M (2017) Development and experimental evaluation of concurrent control of a robotic arm and continuum manipulator for osteolytic lesion treatment. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett 2(3):1625–1631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alambeigi F, Murphy RJ, Basafa E, Taylor RH, Armand M (2014) Control of the coupled motion of a 6 DoF robotic arm and a continuum manipulator for the treatment of pelvis osteolysis. In: Conference proceedings: annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual Conference, vol 2014, p 6521. NIH Public AccessGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alambeigi F, Yu W, Murphy RJ, Iordachita I, Armand M (2016) Toward robot-assisted hard osteolytic lesion treatment using a continuum manipulator. In: 2016 IEEE 38th annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC). IEEE, pp 5103–5106Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alambeigi, F, Sefati S, Murphy RJ, Iordachita I, Armand M (2016) Design and characterization of a debriding tool in robot-assisted treatment of osteolysis. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 5664–5669Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolf I et al (2005) The medical imaging interaction toolkit. Med Image Anal 9(6):594–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murphy RJ et al (2015) Development of a biomechanical guidance system for periacetabular osteotomy. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(4):497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tran TN et al (2014) Experimental and computational studies on the femoral fracture risk for advanced core decompression. Clin Biomech 29(4):412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nuchter A, Lingemann K, Hertzberg J (2007) Cached kd tree search for ICP algorithms. In: Sixth international conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling, 2007. 3DIM’07. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keyak JH et al (1997) Prediction of femoral fracture load using automated finite element modeling. J Biomech 31(2):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keaveny TM et al (1994) Trabecular bone exhibits fully linear elastic behavior and yields at low strains. J Biomech 27(9):1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergmann G et al (2001) Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech 34(7):859–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yosibash Z, Tal D, Trabelsi N (2010) Predicting the yield of the proximal femur using high-order finite-element analysis with inhomogeneous orthotropic material properties. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1920):2707–2723MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Basafa E et al (2013) Patient-specific finite element modeling for femoral bone augmentation. Med Eng Phys 35(6):860–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burstein AH, Reilly DT, Frankel VH (1973) Failure characteristics of bone and bone tissue. In: Perspectives in biomedical engineering. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dempster WT, Liddicoat RT (1952) Compact bone as a non-isotropic material. Dev Dyn 91(3):331–362Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wirtz DC et al (2000) Critical evaluation of known bone material properties to realize anisotropic FE-simulation of the proximal femur. J Biomech 33(10):1325–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Floerkemeier T et al (2011) Core decompression and osteonecrosis intervention rod in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: clinical outcome and finite element analysis. Int Orthop 35(10):1461–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mwale F et al (2011) Abnormal vascular endothelial growth factor expression in mesenchymal stem cells from both osteonecrotic and osteoarthritic hips. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 69(1):S56Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierce TP et al (2015) A current review of non-vascularized bone grafting in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Cur Rev Musculoskelet Med 8(3):240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahsan Bakhtiarinejad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Farshid Alambeigi
    • 1
  • Alireza Chamani
    • 1
  • Mathias Unberath
    • 2
  • Harpal Khanuja
    • 3
  • Mehran Armand
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics, Department of Mechanical EngineeringJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics, Department of Computer ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryJohns Hopkins Medical SchoolBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Applied Physics LaboratoryJohns Hopkins UniversityLaurelUSA

Personalised recommendations