Skip to main content

Table 3 Implant type, design and validation strategies, and stress shielding measured of studies applying uniform porosity designs

From: Additively manufactured controlled porous orthopedic joint replacement designs to reduce bone stress shielding: a systematic review

Study

Implant type

Lattice design

Main design parameter

Computational validation

Experimental validation

Main stress shielding measure

Max. stress shielding reduction *

Overall quality score

[81]

Hip acetabular cup

Extensive porous surface

Pore size, porosity, elastic modulus

–

Clinical study, radiographic assessment

Stress shielding grading system

Absent − 60%

Mild + 58%

Moderate − 100%

Severe + 100%

17

[33]

Hip femoral stem

Simple gyroid—solid outer skin

Elastic modulus

–

–

Elastic modulus

Not quantified

14

[39]

Hip femoral stem

Auxetic—porous proximal part

Elastic modulus

Implanted model

–

Stress and strain in bone

Stress + 27%

Strain + 83%

18

[40]

Hip femoral stem

Cubic—porous proximal part

Pore size

Implanted model

–

Stress and strain in bone

Stress + 7%

Strain + 15%

17

[36, 37]

Hip femoral stem

Rhombic dodecahedron—fully porous

Elastic modulus

Implanted model

Flexure testing, implanted model

Stress in bone, bone surface strains

Not quantified

18

[29]

Hip femoral stem

Cubic—solid outer skin

Strut size

Bending test

Bending test

Bending stiffness

Bending stiffness − 60%

16

[26, 42]

Hip femoral stem

Diamond—solid outer skin except for proximal part

Elastic modulus

ISO 7206-4, implanted model

Implanted model

Bone resorption

Formation − 18%

Homeostasis + 6%

Resorption -19%

22

[14, 27]

Hip femoral stem

Body-centered cubic (BCC)—solid outer skin with beads in proximal part

Porosity

ISO 7206-4, implanted model

–

Stress in bone, stress shielding increase

Gruen zone 7: − 28%

SSI − 90%

19

[35]

Hip femoral stem

Body-centered cubic (BCC)

Mechanical properties

Implanted model

–

Stress shielding signal (SSS)

SSS − 81% (up to)

18

[41]

Hip femoral stem

Face and body-centered cubic with z-truss (FBBCz), Octet-truss

Elastic modulus, yield strength

Structural analysis

–

mechanical properties

Not quantified

14

[34]

Hip femoral stem

Body-centered cubic (BCC)

Density

Implanted model

–

Stress shielding signal

Gruen zone 6: − 11%, Gruen zone 7: − 25%

19

[43]

Knee femoral component pegs

–

Porosity of geometrically optimized pegs

Implanted model

–

Stress in bone

Stress + 18.16%

16

[44]

Knee tibial component

Rhombic dodecahedron—fully porous stem

Pore size, porosity

Implanted model

–

Stress and strain energy in bone

Stress + 64%

Strain energy + 121%

12

[45]

Knee tibial component

Gyroid

Elastic modulus

Implanted model

–

Stress and strain energy in bone

Stress + 30%, strain energy + 91%

14

[38]

Shoulder humeral stem

Face-centered cubic (FCC)

Mass reduction

–

–

Elastic modulus

Not quantified

14