Materials

& Design
Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

Design of a composite hip femoral prosthesis

a,* b
J.A. Simões , A.T. Marques
a
Departmento de Engenharia Mecânica, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro 3810-193, Portugal
b
Departmento de Eng. Mecânica e Gestão Industrial, Universidade do Porto, Porto 4200-465, Portugal

Received 8 January 2004; accepted 22 July 2004

Available online 22 September 2004

Abstract

This paper is a retrospective presentation of the authorsÕ articles concerning the design and prototype manufacturing of a com-
posite femoral prosthesis. A composite hip femoral prosthesis has been designed and development process is described. The novel
hip prosthesis is a multi-material structure composed of a cobalt–chrome core surrounded by a flexible controlled stiffness composite
structure and was first assessed by means of finite-element analysis and its predicted performance compared with conventional
bonded and press-fit Co–Cr and titanium prostheses. A conceptual prototype was then manufactured and the concept validated
through an idealised numerical-experimental procedure that allowed the determination of its graded stiffness.

2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: A. Multi-materials; A. Composites-polymer matrix; C. Braiding

1. Introduction long-term failure of the THR and why innovation proc-

Hip prostheses fail depending on implant design.
Aseptic loosening seems to be the most important cause
of failure in total hip replacement (THR) (see for exam-
ple [1]). Clinically, late aseptic loosening is observed as
gross motion of the prosthesis within the bone with
associated pain and restriction in the range of the joint
motion. Ultimately, it can lead to the implant being re-
placed, ore revised, which is painful for the patient, tech-
nically much more difficult for the surgeon and costly to
the health service. Many new designs of prostheses are
being introduced which claim to have improved success
rates, with little or no supporting scientific evidence [2].
Different type of problems has been associated with
THR, some of them related to the design of the prosthe-
sis. An excellent overview on the predominant causes for
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 234 370830; fax: +351 234
370953.
E-mail address: simoes@mec.ua.pt (J.A. Simões).
ess has failed is given by Huiskes [3]. However, it seems
that the incidence of migration, the permanent displace-
ment of an implant relative to the bone with respect to
time, is an important clinical parameter to predict the
long-term behaviour of prostheses.
THR components are subjected to incompatible de-
sign goals as regards prevention of different failure sce-
narios; hence, the development of any new hip
prosthesis must take into account a compromise be-
tween design goals. Stress shielding and migration are
design objectives that require different solutions. Stress
shielding depends on the design of the intramedullar
reconstruction and mainly on the material of the stem,
which influences the mechanism of load transfer from
implant to the surrounding bone, and can have an
alarming effect on a revision procedure [4]. Early accen-
tuated migration can lead to the premature failure of the
implant. Relatively to the stemÕs material stiffness, flexi-
ble stems provoke less stress shielding in the surround-
ing bone, but higher proximal interface and cement
stresses; rigid stems provoke high proximal stress

0261-3069/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2004.07.024
392 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
shielding, but lower interface stresses. The design chal-
lenge is to know how to minimise stress shielding main-
taining interface stresses and interface micromotions
within acceptable levels [3,5].
Conventional proximal femoral prostheses are man-
ufactured with single constant modulus material (metal
alloy). Such prostheses can only be designed optimally
to minimise stress shielding or interface stresses, and
never both simultaneously. Therefore, adequate stiff-
ness is necessary to address simultaneously, within cer-
tain restrictions, stress shielding and micromotion [2,4].
Aiming this objective, numerical schemes have been
developed and tested to generate optimised designs.
Kuiper [6] and Kuiper and Huiskes [5,7] developed a
numerical scheme, together with a mathematical formu-
lation of the design objectives, and obtained material
properties for a two-dimensional and three-dimensional
bone-prosthesis configuration. The design objectives
within this study have been formulated considering a
limit to the amount of bone loss while generating a
favourable interface stress distribution. The results show
that the implanted femur with variable modulus pros-
thesis produces the desired load transfer distribution,
minimizing both calcar stress shielding and interface
micromotion.
Some investigations have addressed the thematic of
designing optimised hip prosthesis, although the objec-
tive for using composite materials is not always very
clear. In fact, there has been substantial active research
with composites for biomedical applications, namely for
hip prostheses [2,4,8–32]. The possibilities of mainly
stress shielding reduction, and therefore bone resorption
minimization, and thigh pain alleviation, have stimu-
lated the development of compliant and tailored pros-
theses designs made from these materials.
Composite materials allow the designer to customise
the desired optimized stiffness and strength and are
potentially excellent materials for hip prostheses appli-
cations. However, it is necessary to prove the benefits
of these materials clearly, namely those properties re-
lated to biocompatibility and biofunctionality perform-
ance [4]. The manufacturing costs of composite
materials for the design of prostheses or other medical
equipment are an important design consideration. Ten
years ago, Havelin et al. [33] have estimated that nearly
800,000 hip replacements were being carried out world-
wide. This number must have increased significantly,
being probably around 1,000,000. When carrying out re-
search, we tend to concentrate efforts on increasing the
service of life of implants rather than on lowering tech-
nology costs. Implants with longer life service will com-
pensate the possible high composite technology costs,
since one of the biggest obstacles in switching from met-
al-based to composite-based technology has to do with
the high investment made over the years on the technol-
ogy for fabricating implants using traditional materials
[34]. Currently, it is not clear what cost savings, if any,
are possible by using composites as compared to the tra-
ditional technology. In spite of this, many of the tradi-
tional metal devices are being replaced by composite
ones and are, therefore, outperforming metal alloys [4].
Most of the developed composite material prostheses
have been manufactured from laminated composites
[11,13,16,20,29–32,34]. Christel et al. [12] developed
hip prostheses made from carbon fibres infiltrated either
with dense pyrolytic carbon or silicon carbide through
chemical vapour infiltration. The implantation of these
carbon–carbon hip prostheses has been stopped due to
significant mechanical failures. Davidson et al. [14] man-
ufactured Corin C-Fit stems from carbon fibre rein-
forced plastic laminates. Claes et al. [13] obtained
carbon fibre reinforced carbon prostheses from lami-
nates where the carbon fibres were arranged in several
layers in angles of 0, ±45 and 90. Reinhardt et al.
[25] studied composite hip prostheses manufactured
using resin transfer moulding technology. In the re-
search program performed by Li et al. [20], a numerical
method was developed to predict the progressive failure
of a thick laminated composite femoral component for
total hip arthroplasty. Srinivasan et al. [29] examined
in situ laminated composite hip prosthesis structural re-
sponse and relative strengths as a function of walking
and stair climbing for better appreciation of its struc-
tural performance. In terms of relative strength, the
authors found that the neck of the composite prosthesis
failed for all activities with the exception of the mid-
stance phase of level walking. However, the prosthesis
appears to have sufficient relative strength for function
at positions distal to the neck of the prosthesis. De San-
tis et al. [15] designed a composite hip prosthesis made
from poly(ether-imide) reinforced with carbon and glass
fibres. The YoungÕs modulus and the strength in tension
for the prosthesis was uniform along the stem axis (40
GPa and 600 MPa, respectively) while the elastic modu-
lus in bending varied from 10 to 60 GPa in the tip-head
direction. Yildiz et al. [31,32] studied the numerical
mechanical performance of fibre reinforced composite
hip prostheses in a femur. The main goal was to study
the effect of fibre orientation in the prosthesis on the re-
sponse of the surrounding femoral bone. Akay and
Aslan [8] performed a comparative stress analysis with
a short carbon–fibre reinforced PEEK (CF/PEEK) pros-
thesis manufactured by injection moulding. Canine
composite stems have also been developed and clinically
evaluated [16,21,22]. Most of these studies had as objec-
tive the design of prostheses with identical stiffness char-
acteristics of the host bone, which does not seem to be
the correct design approach. These designs will probably
allow the reduction of stress shielding, and probably
bone resorption, but will provoke higher interface stres-
ses [2]. It is more or less the consensus that these types of
designs produce larger relative micromotions at the
 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
bone-prosthesis interface, which are known to cause the
formation of an unstable fibrous tissue layer [35,36]. It
was mainly due to a very low proximal stiffness of the
first version of the RM isoelastic prosthesis that a high
incidence of loosening was observed [37]. A second ver-
sion of the same prosthesis was developed, but with a
larger proximal metallic core to higher proximal stiffness
and so avoid high micromotion.
The novel prosthesis hereby described is based on a
cobalt–chrome core with a flexible composite outer
layer. By varying the composite layer thickness, and
intrinsically the geometry of the core, it was possible
to control the prosthesis stiffness. The design concept
was critically assessed using the finite element method.
Prototypes were manufactured embedding the design
concept.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The design concept
Although composite materials offer a very high de-
gree of design freedom, it can however be extremely dif-
ficult to manufacture prosthesis with modulus materials
ranging from 20 to 200 GPa. To overcome this design
obstacle, the present design concept discussed is based
on a combination of a metal core (to give high proximal
stiffness) bonded to a reinforced polymeric composite
Fig. 1. Design concept.
393
layer (for low distal stiffness). The proposed design is
based on the concept discussed by Kuiper [6], with the
prosthesis having a relatively high proximal-medial
modulus and a receding distal modulus matching the
cortical bone modulus at the prosthesis tip. The novel
prosthesis consists of an inner cobalt–chrome (E = 200
GPa) core surrounded by a flexible composite outer
layer (E = 10 GPa, modulus obtained from specimen
testing).
As shown in Fig. 1, the geometry has been based on a
modified version of the Freeman hip and included an in-
creased thickness (2 mm) composite layer on the proxi-
mal medial aspect of the prosthesis for a distance of 5
mm below the neck resection level [38]. The prosthesis
was separated in two parts, the straight-backed cylindri-
cal stem and the proximal medial wedge. The modulus
of the straight-backed stem was varied from 80 GPa
proximally to 20 GPa distally. The modulus of the prox-
imal medial wedge was varied from 150 GPa proximally
to 100 GPa at the intersection with the straight-backed
stem. The tip and proximal-lateral modulus values were
derived from Kuiper [6]. A different proximal-medial
modulus was used, in this case 150 GPa to avoid high
peak interface stresses observed with a 100 GPa
modulus.
To obtain the composite layer thickness, a mathemat-
ical model was implemented base on the hypothesis that
the stiffness of the optimised prosthesis is the same as the
stiffness of the controlled stiffness prosthesis (core and
composite layer) [38]
394




EI yy opt
¼ EI yy mc
þ EI yy cl
; ð1Þ
where (EIyy)opt, (EIyy)mc and (EIyy)cl are the optimised,
metal core and composite layer bending stiffness, respec-
tively. Developing Eq. (1) by considering the second mo-
ment of area of the prosthesis geometry and considering
linear modulus variations of E(z)opt = 0.375z + 20 (distal
and proximal-lateral; z 2 [0, 160]) and E(x)opt = 2x + 8
(proximal-medial; x 2 [10, 35]), the optimal thickness
functions were derived [38].
2.2. Finite element analysis
A two-dimensional, side-plated, finite element model
was generated of a femur implanted with the novel geom-
etry. Due to the comparative nature of this study, no at-
tempt was made to accurately simulate the bending
stiffness of the implanted femur in the coronal plane,
and hence the model employed a constant thickness side
plate. The model consisted of 1976 four-node plane stress
elements and 1922 nodes. The bone-prosthesis interface
was modelled using node-to-line contact elements. The
prosthesis was modelled either as a press-fit, with a coeffi-
cient of friction of 0.25, or when bonded with the interface
as being capable of transmitting tensile and shear stresses.
A model of a cemented prosthesis with a cement mantle
thickness of at least 1.5 mm was also generated as a
reference.
Two conventional cementless implants (Co–Cr –
E = 200 GPa and titanium – E = 100 GPa) and the com-
posite prosthesis were investigated. In each case, the
cementless prostheses were analysed as either press-fit-
ted or bonded. The cortical and cancellous bones were
assumed to have a modulus of 17 and 0.4, GPa, respec-
tively. All material properties were assumed to be
Composite
Co-Cr
Titanium
Cemented
0.06 0.04
Fig. 2. Comparison of the medial and lateral periosteal strain energy distribution produced by bonded prostheses.
J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
isotropic, homogeneous and linearly elastic and to have
a Poisson ratio of 0.33. Each model was loaded with a
vertically applied joint reaction force of 3 kN while
the distal end of the femur was rigidly constrained. In
each case the periosteal strain energy distributions were
examined, on both the medial and lateral sides, in order
to assess the degree of stress shielding and potential for
bone resorption. Also, the endosteal minimum principal
cancellous bone stresses were examined to assess the risk
of cancellous bone failure and hence migration [39,40].
2.2.1. Results
Fig. 2 shows the strain energy distributions for the
bonded prostheses at the medial and lateral sides of the
femur. Similar results were observed for press-fit pros-
theses. All prostheses produce a similar strain energy dis-
tribution over the proximal 40 mm of the femur, both
medially and laterally, with the values approaching zero.
Differences are observed distally to this region with the
cobalt–chrome prosthesis producing a 24% lower mean
strain energy value than the cemented prosthesis. The
bonded composite prosthesis generated higher mean
medial and lateral strain energies, of 12% and 16%,
respectively, than the cemented prosthesis. On the medial
and lateral surfaces, distal to the tip of the stem the strain
energy distributions of all the prostheses simulated con-
verge to a common solution, that of the intact femur. The
mean medial and lateral strain energies for conventional
and composite prostheses are summarised in Fig. 3.
The press-fit prostheses generated significantly higher
strain energy distributions than the bonded implants. As
a press-fit implant, the composite stem has mean strain
energy of 28% higher than the cemented one. The
cobalt–chrome stem produces the lowest mean strain
0.02 0.0 0.0 0.012 0.024 0.036
Strain Energy (MPa)
 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401 395

4
Lateral Bonded Press-fit
Medial
3

Fig. 3. Mean and peak medial and lateral strain energies for bonded and press-fit prostheses.

energy. Similar differences can also be observed on the
lateral face of the femur. The composite prosthesis pro-
duces the best strain energy distribution, either as a
bonded or press-fit implant.
The endosteal cancellous bone minimum principal
stresses were also examined. All prostheses generated
similar cancellous bone stress distribution patterns, with
the peak cancellous bone stresses occurring just below
the neck resection level. For the cemented stem, the
stress reduces gradually to 2 MPa at almost the distal
portion of cancellous bone, before rising to 4 MPa at
the cortical-cancellous bone junction. For the cementless
protheses, the cancellous bone stresses gradually de-
crease distally to a value of 1 MPa.
The minimum principal cancellous bone stresses for
the bonded prostheses are shown in Fig. 4. The co-
balt–chrome prosthesis performs better than any other
design, since it generates the lowest peak and mean min-
imum principal stresses. The cemented and the compos-
ite designs produce very similar endosteal cancellous
bone stresses. It is interesting to note that the composite
design produces lower distal peak cancellous bone stres-
ses than the cemented prosthesis. The titanium stem pro-
duces a mean cancellous bone stress very similar to the
cobalt–chrome stem but has a very high peak value of
7.2 MPa. The press-fit prostheses generate significantly
higher cancellous bone stresses (Fig. 5). The composite
stem incorporates, as said previously, a proximal soft
layer of 2 mm thick and 5 mm in length, as shown in
Fig. 1, which causes a drop in the peak cancellous bone
stress at this level.
All the press-fit prostheses produce mean cancellous
bone stresses higher than the cemented prosthesis (Fig.
6). The cobalt–chrome, titanium, composite stems

6
8,1
Distal 7,4

Co-Cr

Titanium
2
Composite

Proximal
0
120 140 160 180 200
Prosthesis axial position ( mm )

Fig. 4. Comparison of the minimum principal cancellous bone stresses for bonded prostheses.
396 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401

6
7,2
Co-Cr

Titanium

Cemented
4
Composite

distal proximal
0
120 140 160 180 200
Prosthesis axial position ( mm )

Fig. 5. Comparison of the minimum principal cancellous bone stresses for press-fit prostheses.

10
bonded
press-fit
8
8,0
7,2 7,4
6
5,5 5,6
5,1
4 4,6

Fig. 6. Mean and peak cancellous bone stresses for bonded and press-fit prostheses.

produce 17%, 28% and 40%, respectively, higher mean
endosteal minimum principal stresses than the cemented
stem.
2.2.2. Discussion
Two-dimensional finite element models have shown
to give a reasonable approximation of the stress distri-
bution in the mid-frontal plane [41]. In order to simplify
the models a number of assumptions were made. The
models were simplistically loaded with a vertically ap-
plied joint reaction force. However, Taylor et al.
[39,40] have shown that the cancellous bone stress distri-
bution is dominated by the vertical component of the
joint reaction force. The cancellous bone was assumed
to be isotropic and homogeneous, whereas it is known
to be anisotropic and heterogeneous in the proximal fe-
mur. The bonded prostheses were assumed to have
achieved 100% osseointegration with the surrounding
bone, whereas in reality this is unlikely to occur. Thus,
these results should be treated as qualitative, rather than
quantitative, in nature.
The long-term success of any implant is dependent
on many parameters. However, bone resorption due
to stress shielding and excessive implant migration
[42–44] has been identified as major contributing fac-
tors to the aseptic loosening of proximal femoral pros-
theses. Within the numerical study, both have been
evaluated by examining the periosteal strain energy dis-
tribution as a measure of the potential stress shielding
[41], and hence bone resorption, and the initial cancel-
 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401 397

lous bone stresses as a measure of potential migration Table 1

[39,40]. Geometry dimensions, volume fibre content and stiffness properties of
tubular specimens
The bonded stems produce a more desirable cancel-
lous bone stress distribution. If 2 MPa is considered as Specimen Diameter Thickness Volume fibre (%)
(mm) (mm)
the fatigue failure threshold, it can be seen that all pros-
theses produce cancellous bone stresses that are likely to #H1 30.398 1.190 43.5
#H2 30.348 1.186 39.0
promote fatigue failure. Analysing the stress distribu- #H3 30.365 1.186 39.5
tion, it can be seen that the fatigue failure will be over
Mean 30.370 1.187 40.7
virtually the whole length of the medial wedge of the
prosthesis for the cemented stem, while for all the others Ez (GPa) Eh (GPa) mhz mzh
this only happens for two-thirds of the wedge. If 4 MPa #H1 8.8 11.8 0.45 0.33
is considered as the fatigue failure threshold, except for #H2 9.0 13.6 0.46 0.30
the titanium stem, all the others have a stress distribu- #H3 8.9 12.8 0.46 0.32
tion below this value, not taking into account the peak Mean 8.9 12.7 0.46 0.32
stress value.

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the manufacturing of the composite stem prototypes.

398 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401

All press-fit prostheses produce cancellous bone stress of 2.14 (Tokyo Sokki Kenkyujo Co., Ltd.) were bonded
distributions that are above the 4 MPa fatigue failure to the specimens and the four elastic constants (Ez, Eh,
threshold. The cobalt–chrome prosthesis produces the mhz and mzh) obtained (Table 1).
lowest cancellous bone stresses of all the press-fit im-
plants. It appears to be desirable to have a very stiff stem 3.2. Femoral component manufacturing
in order to minimise cancellous bone stresses. Essen-
tially, this study suggest that, regardless of the implant Prototypes of the novel design were manufactured
material, a press-fit prosthesis will always generate high using compression moulding composite technology.
migration rates and a corresponding high incidence of The same type of composite structure manufactured
late aseptic loosening due to the fatigue failure of the for the tubular specimens was applied in the manufac-
surrounding cancellous bone. The composite stem stud- turing of prototypes. Pre-forms were wrapped around
ied transfers the majority of the load in the most proxi- a metal core, impregnated with resin and placed in a
mal region, causing significantly higher cancellous bone mould, which was closed using a hot press stamp and
stresses than the cobalt–chrome stem, which distributes left curing at room temperature for 24 h. The prototype
the applied joint reaction force evenly over the available was left post curing for 24 h at 80 C. Fig. 7 illustrates
load-bearing area. schematically the manufacturing of the prototype stems.
For the bonded prostheses, the composite design Fig. 8 illustrates one of the manufactured prototypes [2].
analysed combines the most favourable features of
the load-transfer mechanisms of a stiff and a flexible
stem. It should be noted that it still provokes stress 4. Concept validation
shielding in the calcar region. Another important
observation is that the composite prosthesis hereby To determine the variation of the prototype prosthe-
studied did not improve the predicted performance of sis stiffness, the method idealised consisted on the com-
press-fit designs. parison of the prosthesis lateral displacement field
measured using non-contact experimental technique,
namely electronic speckle pattern interferometry (ESPI)
3. Prototype manufacturing with the one obtained with an analytical model. The
detailing of the numerical–experimental procedure can
3.1. Material stiffness characteristics be seen in [45].
The experimental displacements were obtained with a
For the numerical simulation and determination of prototype to determine the variation of its stiffness and
stiffness properties of the composite material, three compared with identical results derived from an analyt-
tubular specimens of hybrid carbon–glass fibre rein-
forcement were manufactured. Commercial braided
pre-forms (Cobrasoxe – A&T Technology, Kentucky,
USA) with diameter of 38.1 mm and a braiding angle
of 45 were used. For a volume fraction of 50%, the
mean thickness of these reinforcement structures is 0.3
mm. Three pre-forms were impregnated with an epoxy
resin system (Beresin L 84A resin with 20% Beresin L
84B catalyst), wrapped around a 40 mm diameter poly-
ethylene tubular bag (Walsroder Perfect) and placed in-
side an aluminium mould. A pressure of 5 bar was
introduced into the polyethylene bag, pressing the
impregnated laminate towards the inner mould surface.
The laminate was then left to cure for 24 h at room tem-
perature. All the specimens were post-cured at 80 C for
12 h. The dimensions and volume fibre of the specimens
are given in Table 1. The volume fibre content was deter-
mined according to the Portuguese Standard NP 2216/
1988 (determination of mass loss by calcinations of glass
fibre reinforced plastics) [4].
The axial and circumferential strains developed at the
outer surface of the tubular specimens were measured
performing internal pressurisation tests. To determine
these, biaxial rosettes GFCA-3-350-50 with gauge factor Fig. 8. Controlled stiffness composite femoral prosthesis.
 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
Fig. 9. ESPI versus theoretical displacements.
ical model. The prosthesis was fixed and loaded as as-
sumed in the analytical model, as a cantilever beam. A
stiff support was used to hold the prosthesis 30 mm from
its distal end. The magnitude of the displacement field
measured was of the order of the micron, therefore a
very low load of P = 0.2 N was used to obtain a reason-
able amount of fringes and to calculate the displacement
values.
The displacement field obtained resulted from the
phase map calculation by using an image-processing
algorithm based on phase stepping techniques. The 2p
phase difference corresponds to a k/2 (k = 632 nm) dis-
placement; therefore, the displacement point on the
prosthesis surface was obtained by y(z) = fringe or-
der · 316 nm.
Fig. 9 shows the graphic comparison of the ESPI and
numerical integration displacement fields. A relatively
good correlation between these was obtained using the
method described, and so we can state with some cer-
tainty that the prototype has the optimised stiffness de-
fined in Section 2. However, at the distal part of the
prosthesis, where it was rigidly fixed, the highest dis-
placement difference was observed, which is a natural
phenomena due to a typical experimental perturbing re-
gion. The displacement difference near the prosthesis fix-
ation device was 400% and gradually diminished up to a
difference of 2.5% at the last observed fringe, which was
localised at a distance of 15 mm from the applied load.
The higher differences observed at the fixation region of
the prosthesis may have resulted from a less efficient fix-
ation, which in the analytical–numerical model is con-
sidered ideally. The maximum displacement obtained
399
with the ESPI technique was 4.3 lm; for the analytical
model, the maximum displacement was 4.1 lm, a rela-
tive difference of 5%.
5. Concluding remarks
The controlled stiffness composite concept prosthesis
showed its adequacy for the design of a hip prosthesis,
considering a compromise between strain energy distri-
bution (a parameter used to determine the stress shield-
ing effect and therefore the degree of bone resorption)
and cancellous bone stresses (parameter to determine
the prosthesis migration). By combining a stiff material
with a more flexible one, it is possible to obtain a design
with desirable controlled stiffness to meet the require-
ments of the compromise between the two parameters
studied: stress shielding and migration.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their acknowledgments to all col-
leagues that somehow contributed to this work. Spe-
cially thanks to Prof. Mario Vaz and Jaime Monteiro
(LOME-INEGI) for the help given with the ESPI work;
Dr. Mark Taylor from the University of Southampton
for the help given with the numerical simulations; Carlos
Relvas from the Department of Mechanical Engineering
of the University of Aveiro and José Carlos from Nor-
cam-Engenharia e Design Industrial for the machining
of the moulds.
400 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401
References
[1] Harris WH. Aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty secondary
to osteolysis induced by wear debris from titanium-alloy modular
femoral heads. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1991;73:470–472.
[2] Simões JA, Marques AT, Jeronimidis G. The design of a
controlled-stiffness composite proximal femoral prosthesis. Com-
pos Sci Technol 2000;60:559–567.
[3] Huikes R. Failed innovation in total hip replacement: diagnosis
and proposals for a cure. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64(4):699–716.
[4] Simões JA, Marques AT. Determination of stiffness properties of
braided reinforced composites for the design of a hip prosthesis.
Compos Part A – Appl S 2001;32(5):655–662.
[5] Kuiper JH, Huiskes R. Numerical optimization of hip-prosthetic
stem material. In: Middleton, et al., editors. Computer methods
in biomechanics and biomedicine. New York: Gordon and
Breach; 1993. p. 78–84.
[6] Kuiper JH. Numerical optimisation of artificial hip joint designs.
Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
1993.
[7] Kuiper JH, Huiskes R. Mathematical optimization of elastic
properties: application to cementless hip stem design. J Biomech
Eng 1997;119:166–174.
[8] Akay M, Aslan N. Numerical and experimental stress analysis of
a polymeric composite hip joint prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res
1996;31:167–182.
[9] Bakar MSA, Cheng MHW, Tang SM, Yu SC, Liao K, Tan CT,
et al.. Tensile properties, tension–tension fatigue and biological
response of polyetheretherketone–hydroxyapatite composites for
load-bearing orthopedic implants. Biomaterials
2003;24(13):2245–2250.
[10] Blake TA, Davy DT, Saravanos DA, Hopkins DA. Numerical
optimization of composite hip endoprostheses. In: Proceedings of
the fourth AIAA/USAF/NASA/OAI symposium on multidisci-
plinary analysis and optimization; 1992. p. 119–29.
[11] Chang F, Perez JL, Davidson JA. Stiffness and strength tailoring
of a hip prosthesis made of advanced composite materials. J
Biomed Mater Res 1990;24:873–899.
[12] Christel P, Muenier A, Leclerq S. Development of a carbon–
carbon hip prosthesis. J Biomed Mat Res, Appl Biomater
1987;21(A2):191–198.
[13] Claes I, Burri C, Neugbauer R, Gruber U. Experimental
investigations of hip prostheses with carbon fibre reinforced
carbon shafts and ceramic heads. In: Vincenzini P, editor.
Ceramics in surgery, Amsterdam; 1983. p. 243–50.
[14] Davidson R, Bradon S, Lee RJ, Nelson K, Unwin P, Roughley P.
The development of CFRP based hip stems. In: Proceedings of
the seventh European conference on composite materials, ECCM-
7, London; 1996. p. 513–7.
[15] De Santis R, Ambrosio L, Nicolais L. Polymer-based composite
hip prostheses. J Inorg Biochem 2000;79(1–4):97–102.
[16] Fagan M, Aberman HM, Bushelow M, Lin RY, Dumbleton JH,
DeYoung DJ, et al.. Effects of composite laminate lay-up
configuration of a canine composite hip stem on bone strains.
BED, Adv Bioeng, ASME 1994;28:445–446.
[17] Fu W. Design optimization of laminated composite femoral
component for total hip joint arthroplasty. Ph.D. thesis, Graduate
School of Clemson University; 1998.
[18] Kaddick C, Stur S, Hipp E. Mechanical simulation of composite
hip stems. Med Eng Phys 1997;19(5):431–439.
[19] Katoozian H, Davy DT, Arshi A, Saadati U. Material optimi-
zation of femoral component of total hip prosthesis using fiber
reinforced polymeric composites. Med Eng Phys 2001;23:
503–509.
[20] Li C, Granger C, Del Schutte H, Biggers SB, Kennedy JM,
Latour RA. Progressive failure analysis of laminated composite
femoral prostheses for total hip arthroplasrty. Biomaterials
2002;23(21):4249–4262.
[21] Magee FP, Weinstein AM, Longo JA, Koeneman JB, Yapp RA.
A canine composite femoral stem. Clin Orthop Rel Res
1988;235:237–252.
[22] Maistrelli GL, Mahomed N, Garbuz D, Fornasier V, Harring-
ton IJ, Binnington A. Hydroxyapatite coating on carbon
composite hip implants in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg 1992;74(3):
452–456.
[23] Mendes DG, Roffman M, Soundry M, Angel D, Boss J, Charit Y,
et al.. A composite hip implant. Orthop Rev 1988;17:402–407.
[24] Mukherjee DP, Saha S. The application of a new composite
materials for total joint arthroplasty. J Long Term Eff Med
Implants 1993;3:141–151.
[25] Reinhardt A, Advani SG, Santare MH, Miller F. Preliminary
study on composite hip prostheses made by resin transfer
molding. J Compos Mater 1999;33(9):852–870.
[26] Simões JA. Desenvolvimento da componente femoral de uma
protese de anca de rigidez controlada (Development of a
controlled stiffness proximal femoral prosthesis). Ph.D. thesis,
Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica e Gestao Industrial,
Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Porto,
Portugal; 1998.
[27] Skinner HB. Composite technology for total hip arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Res 1988;235:224–236.
[28] Soyer J. Experimental protocol for mechanical characterization of
a femoral implant of carbon-PEEK composite hip prosthesis in
fatigue. Chirurgie 1997;121:658–662.
[29] Srinivasan S, Andrade JR, Biggers SB, Latour RA. Structural
response and relative strength of a laminated composite hip
prosthesis. Biomaterials 2000;23(21):4249–4262.
[30] Srinivasan S, Andrade JR, Biggers SB, Latour RA. 3-D global/
local analysis of composite hip prostheses – a model for multiscale
structural analysis. Compos Struct 1999;45(3):163–170.
[31] Yildiz H, Chang FK, Goodman S. Composite hip prosthesis
design. I. Analysis. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;39:92–101.
[32] Yildiz H, Chang FK, Goodman S. Composite hip prosthesis
design. II. Simulation. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;39:102–119.
[33] Havelin LI, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB. Early failures
among 14009 cemented and 1326 uncemented prostheses for
primary coarthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65:1–6.
[34] Devanathan D. Orthopaedic composites. In: Stuart M. Lee,
editor. International encyclopedia of composites, vol. 4. New
York; 1991. p. 74–86.
[35] Linder L. Implant stability, histology, RSA and wear – more
critical questions are needed: a viewpoint. Acta Orthop Scand
1994;65:654–658.
[36] Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect
of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants.
Clin Orthop Rel Res 1986;208:103–108.
[37] Morscher EW, Dick W. Cementless fixation of ÔisoelasticÕ hip
endoprostheses manufactured from plastic materials. Clin Ortho
Rel Res 1983;176:77–87.
[38] Simões JA, Marques AT, Jeronimidis G. Preliminary investi-
gation of a novel controlled stiffness proximal femoral pros-
thesis. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part H, J Eng Med 1998;212:
z165–175.
[39] Taylor M, Tanner KE, Freeman MAR, Yettram AL. Finite
element modelling – a predictor of implant survival. J Mater Sci,
Mater Med 1995;6:808–812.
[40] Taylor M, Tanner KE, Freeman MAR, Yettram AL. Cancellous
bone stresses surrounding the femoral component of a hip
prosthesis: an elastic–plastic finite element analysis. Med Eng
Phys 1995;17:544–550.
[41] Huiskes R. Stress pattern around femoral stems. Clin Orthop Rel
Res 1990;261:27–37.
 J.A. Simões, A.T. Marques / Materials and Design 26 (2005) 391–401 401

[42] Freeman MAR, Plante-Bordeneuve P. Early migration and late
aseptic failure of proximal femoral prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg
B 1994;76:432–438.
[43] Kärrholm J, Borssen B, Löwenhielm G, Snorrason F. Does early
micromotion of the femoral stem prostheses matter. J Bone Joint
Surg B 1994;76:912–917.
[44] Walker PS, Mai SF, Cobb AG, Bentley G, Hua J. Prediction of
clinical outcome of THR from migration measurements on
standard radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg B 1995;77:705–714.
[45] Simões JA, Monteiro J, Vaz MA. Numerical–experimental
method for the validation of a controlled stiffness femoral
prosthesis. J Biomech Eng 2001;123:234–238.