%0 Journal Article
%T Biomechanical analysis of load distribution in porcine hip joints at different acetabular coverages.
%A Tachibana T
%A Katagiri H
%A Matsuda J
%A Ozeki N
%A Watanabe T
%A Sekiya I
%A Jinno T
%J BMC Musculoskelet Disord
%V 25
%N 1
%D 2024 Jul 24
%M 39049016
%F 2.562
%R 10.1186/s12891-024-07701-w
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Developmental dysplasia of the hip causes secondary osteoarthritis. Finite element analysis suggests high hip joint contact pressure in patients with hip dysplasia and a reduction in contact pressure after periacetabular osteotomy. However, few biomechanical studies have examined the load distribution in the hip joint. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical properties of load distribution in porcine hip joints at different acetabular coverages.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Six porcine hip joints were analyzed using three models: 1) neutral coverage, 2) 15° under-coverage (defined as dysplasia model), and 3) 15° over-coverage created by varying the acetabular coverage. The load distribution was assessed using a pressure-mapping sensor system after applying a loading force of 100 N to the hip joint.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>In the dysplasia model, the load was concentrated at the acetabular rim; in the neutral and over-coverage models, it was dispersed. The average contact pressure was significantly higher in the dysplasia model than in the neutral coverage model ([0.42 vs. 0.3 MPa]; p = 0.004). The contact area was significantly smaller in the dysplasia model than in the neutral coverage model ([250.7 vs. 345.0 mm2]; p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in contact pressure or area between the neutral and over-coverage models.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Insufficient acetabular coverage in the dysplasia model demonstrated higher contact pressure and smaller contact area than the neutral model. Conversely, the contact pressure and area in the over-coverage model did not differ significantly from those in the normal model. Therefore, surgeons should note that acetabular coverage overcorrection has limited effect; normalization is crucial during periacetabular osteotomy.