Acoustic prediction and biomechanical validation of primary stability in uncemented short-stem hip prostheses: an experimental study

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background In uncemented hip arthroplasty, achieving sufficient primary stability is essential for long-term implant success. However, objective intraoperative assessment of fixation quality remains challenging. Acoustic analysis of stem impaction sounds offers a promising tool for real-time evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy and biomechanical correlation require further validation. Methods Twelve formalin-fixed human femora were implanted with cementless Metha® short stems under three predefined anchorage conditions: loose, optimal (fit), and fracture-inducing press-fit. Impaction sounds were recorded using calibrated microphones and processed via frequency-domain analysis. Relative micromotions were quantified under torsional loading to biomechanically assess primary stability. Results Spectral markers reliably differentiated between anchorage states. The transition from loose to fit showed minimal spectral change, while fit-to-fracture was characterized by a significant increase in low-frequency energy (15 kHz). These acoustic signatures closely correlated with biomechanically measured micromotions, which showed a distinct hierarchy: fracture < fit < loose. Cluster permutation analysis confirmed statistically significant differences, particularly in the fracture group. Conclusion This in vitro study demonstrates that frequency-based acoustic analysis can distinguish between stable, insufficient, and over-press-fit conditions during stem implantation. The findings support the potential of intraoperative acoustic monitoring as a real-time, objective tool to enhance implant safety and detect cortical compromise before it becomes clinically apparent.
Full text 2,186 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background In uncemented hip arthroplasty, achieving sufficient primary stability is essential for long-term implant success. However, objective intraoperative assessment of fixation quality remains challenging. Acoustic analysis of stem impaction sounds offers a promising tool for real-time evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy and biomechanical correlation require further validation.

Methods

Twelve formalin-fixed human femora were implanted with cementless Metha® short stems under three predefined anchorage conditions: loose, optimal (fit), and fracture-inducing press-fit. Impaction sounds were recorded using calibrated microphones and processed via frequency-domain analysis. Relative micromotions were quantified under torsional loading to biomechanically assess primary stability.

Results

Spectral markers reliably differentiated between anchorage states. The transition from loose to fit showed minimal spectral change, while fit-to-fracture was characterized by a significant increase in low-frequency energy (15 kHz). These acoustic signatures closely correlated with biomechanically measured micromotions, which showed a distinct hierarchy: fracture < fit < loose. Cluster permutation analysis confirmed statistically significant differences, particularly in the fracture group.

Conclusion

This in vitro study demonstrates that frequency-based acoustic analysis can distinguish between stable, insufficient, and over-press-fit conditions during stem implantation. The findings support the potential of intraoperative acoustic monitoring as a real-time, objective tool to enhance implant safety and detect cortical compromise before it becomes clinically apparent. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes ↵* The authors share the first authorship During our internal review, we realized that the senior author name was entered incorrectly. One co-author, Ms. Samar Hamad, was unintentionally omitted. We have corrected both issues and are hereby resubmitting the updated version. We apologize for the oversight and thank you for your understanding.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00