ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

Fig. 3: Neutral implant micromotion (mm): anterior (left) and posterior (right) views.
Fig. 4: Computer experiments: input implant translations (top left) and rotations (top
right); recorded maximum (bottom left) and average micromotions (bottom right).
Fig. 5 displays the distribution of micromotions at the femur-implant interface, scaled to
the limit value of 28µm for each of the considered configurations. For the sake of
simplicity, only the posterior side of the contact surface is displayed. The maximum
micromotion can significantly vary from 17.38 to 56.35μm compared to 28.57μm in the
neutrally positioned case; the resulting average micromotion can vary from 1.74μm to
3.67μm. Fig. 5 clearly confirms that implant positioning can have an impact on
micromovements at the femur-implant interface, thus on the implant primary stability.