A method for estimating the contact area of a dual-mobility total hip prosthesis

The term “contact area” refers to the total surface area of two entities in direct physical touch. When discussing an artificial hip joint, “contact area” refers to the surface area of contact between the components of the artificial hip joint (ball and cup) positioned inside the patient. Several me...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:AIP advances Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 015317 - 015317-9
Main Authors: Hidayat, Taufiq, Ammarullah, Muhammad Imam, Saputra, Eko, Lamura, M. Danny Pratama, K N, Chethan, Ismail, Rifky, Bayuseno, Athanasius Priharyoto, Jamari, J.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Melville American Institute of Physics 01-01-2024
AIP Publishing LLC
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The term “contact area” refers to the total surface area of two entities in direct physical touch. When discussing an artificial hip joint, “contact area” refers to the surface area of contact between the components of the artificial hip joint (ball and cup) positioned inside the patient. Several methods can be used to figure out the contact area of an artificial hip joint, such as finite element analysis and traditional experiments on contact mechanics with hip joint simulators. The contact area in an artificial hip joint ensures load distribution. For optimal and long-term performance, the prosthetic hip joint’s contact area must be well understood for design, fitting, and monitoring. This study presented a novel method to estimate the liner surface contact area due to interaction contact in the artificial hip joint using a computer-aided design (CAD) program. This study also contrasted numerical approaches utilizing computer-aided engineering software and theoretical predictions based on Hertz theory with three-dimensional processes using CAD software to determine the contact area in the inner liner. There were no significant discrepancies in the outcomes of the three approaches.
ISSN:2158-3226
2158-3226
DOI:10.1063/5.0188638