Table 2.
Stress shielding rate calculations (values are represented in mean (SD)) ( n = 8)
| Point | Stress shielding rate in the traditional prosthesis group ( η %) | Stress shielding rate in the anatomic prosthesis group ( η %) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
18.6 (1.6) |
| 2 |
|
21.2 (2.1) |
| 3 |
|
24.9 (1.9) |
| 4 |
|
19.2 (1.7) |
| 5 |
|
25.4 (2.0) |
| 6 |
36.5 (1.8) |
28.3 (2.4) |
| 7 |
43.6 (2.6) |
31.4 (2.8) |
| 8 |
33.0 (2.9) |
26.3 (2.4) |
| 9 |
38.0 (3.1) |
27.0 (1.2) |
| 10 |
5.6 (0.8) |
3.7 (0.4) |
| 11 |
35.6 (2.3) |
22.7 (1.8) |
| 12 |
29.3 (2.6) |
18.4 (1.9) |
| 13 |
36.1 (2.9) |
18.7 (1.4) |
| 14 |
22.7 (1.8) |
15.1 (1.7) |
| 15 |
25.0 (1.6) |
18.5 (1.2) |
| 16 |
1.5 (0.2) |
1.41 (0.1) |
| 17 |
17.9 (1.9) |
10.3 (0.8) |
| 18 | 12.6 (1.1) | 4.3 (0.3) |
The strain values of 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 measurement points in the reservation and traditional femoral prosthesis groups were analyzed by paired t test; the difference was significant (p < 0.05). 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 traditional measuring points were destroyed and cannot be measured. Experimental results showed that the strain values of 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 measurement points in the traditional prosthesis group were less than those of the Germany femoral neck retention prosthesis group (p < 0.05).