Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis

The subject of this article is the development and application of computer-simulation methods to predict stress-related adaptive bone remodeling, in accordance with ‘Wolff's Law’. These models are based on the Finite Element Method (FEM) in combination with numerical formulations of adaptive bone-remodeling theories.\ud \ud In the adaptive remodeling models presented, the Strain Energy Density (SED) is used as a feed-back control variable to determine shape or bone density adaptations to alternative functional requirements, whereby homeostatic SED distribution is assumed as the remodeling objective.\ud \ud These models are applied to investigate the relation between ‘stress shielding’ and bone resorption in the femoral cortex around intramedullary prostheses, such as used in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). It is shown that the amount of bone resorption depends mainly on the rigidity and the bonding characteristics of the implant. Homeostatic SED can be obtained when the resorption process occurs at the periosteal surface, rather than inside the cortex, provided that the stem is adequately flexible

Stresses in cement mantles of hip replacements: effect of femoral implant sizes, body mass index and bone quality

The effects of femoral prosthetic heads of diameters 22 and 28 mm were investigated on the stability of reconstructed hemi-pelves with cement mantles of thicknesses 1-4 mm and different bone qualities. Materialise medical imaging package and I-Deas finite element (FE) software were used to create accurate geometry of a hemi-pelvis from CT-scan images. Our FE results show an increase in cement mantle stresses associated with the larger femoral head. When a 22 mm femoral head is used on acetabulae of diameters 56 mm and above, the probability of survivorship can be increased by creating a cement mantle of at least 1 mm thick. However, when a 28 mm femoral head is used, a cement mantle thickness of at least 4 mm is needed. Poor bone quality resulted in an average 45% increase in the tensile stresses of the cement mantles, indicating resulting poor survivorship rate

Monitoring trends in socioeconomic health inequalities: it matters how you measure

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Odds ratio (OR), a relative measure for health inequality, has frequently been used in prior studies for presenting inequality trends in health and health behaviors. Since OR is not a good approximation of prevalence ratio (PR) when the outcome prevalence is quite high, an important problem may arise when OR trends are used in data in which the outcome variable (e.g., smoking or ill-health) is of relatively high prevalence and varies significantly over time. This study is to compare time trends of odds ratio (OR) and prevalence ratio (PR) for examining time trends in socioeconomic inequality in smoking.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 147,805 subjects (71,793 men and 76,017 women) aged 25–64 from three Social Statistics Surveys of Korea from 1999 to 2006 were analyzed. Socioeconomic position indicators were occupational class and education.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>While there were no significant p values for trend in ORs of occupational class among men, trends for PRs were significant. In women, p values for OR trends were similar to those for PR trends. In males, RII by log-binomial regression showed a significant increasing tendency while RII by logistic regression was stable between years. In females, trends of RIIs by logistic regression and log-binomial regression produced a similar level of p values.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Different methods of measuring trends in socioeconomic health inequalities may lead to different conclusions about whether relative inequalities are increasing or decreasing. Trends in ORs may overstate or understate trends in relative inequality in health when the outcome is of relatively high prevalence and that prevalence varies significantly with time.</p

Socioeconomic patterns in the use of public and private health services and equity in health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies in wealthy countries suggest that utilization of GP and hospital services, after adjusting for health care need, is equitable or pro-poor, whereas specialist care tends to favour the better off. Horizontal equity in these studies has not been evaluated appropriately, since the use of healthcare services is analysed without distinguishing between public and private services. The purpose of this study is to estimate the relation between socioeconomic position and health services use to determine whether the findings are compatible with the attainment of horizontal equity: equal use of public healthcare services for equal need.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data from a sample of 18,837 Spanish subjects were analysed to calculate the percentage of use of public and private general practitioner (GP), specialist and hospital care according to three indicators of socioeconomic position: educational level, social class and income. The percentage ratio was used to estimate the magnitude of the relation between each measure of socioeconomic position and the use of each health service.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After adjusting for age, sex and number of chronic diseases, a gradient was observed in the magnitude of the percentage ratio for public GP visits and hospitalisation: persons in the lowest socioeconomic position were 61–88% more likely to visit public GPs and 39–57% more likely to use public hospitalisation than those in the highest socioeconomic position. In general, the percentage ratio did not show significant socioeconomic differences in the use of public sector specialists. The magnitude of the percentage ratio in the use of the three private services also showed a socioeconomic gradient, but in exactly the opposite direction of the gradient observed in the public services.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings show inequity in GP visits and hospitalisations, favouring the lower socioeconomic groups, and equity in the use of the specialist physician. These inequities could represent an overuse of public healthcare services or could be due to the fact that persons in high socioeconomic positions choose to use private health services.</p