1. Contact Mechanics in Hip Prosthesis Dan Flavin

2. Background • Prosthetic hips a common replacement joint in the US. • Artificial ball and socket to replace worn biological parts. • Hip joint formed of two parts: • Femoral implant with head (monobloc or modular) • Acetabular cup (monobloc or modular) • Lubricated with synovial fluid (non-Newtonian)

3. Types • Three major categories: • Metal on Polymer (MOP) • Standard 1970s , common to present • Metal femur head, UHMWPE acetabular cup • Metal on Metal (MOM) • Both head and cup metal (316L or CoCr) • Common 1990s-2010 (recall) • Ceramic on Ceramic (COC) • Modular metal femur with ceramic head, ceramic liner on cup • Common 1990s to present • Other combinations (COP, MOC) also available • All available in varying head sizes, clearances • Larger head less likely to dislocate, but has higher friction and inertia • MOP and MOM tend to shed debris, COC can fracture • All have similar lifespans

4. The Problem • To address wear and debris problems, need to determine contact area and loading. • This data can then be combined with lab experiments to build full understanding of action at joint. • Complicated by convexity – methods include “flattening” into Hertzian problem. • Apply FEA with COMSOL to determine contact area, to allow further analsis.

5. The Model

6. The Good Results (MOM, COC)

7. The Not So Good Results (MOP)

8. Contact Area Charts

9. Conclusion • Segmentation of graph suggests finer mesh required near contact point • Complete FUBAR of MOP results suggests failure in model for larger displacements. • Use load stepping or larger displacement plugin to allow better control of model