Literature DB >> 21641827

Interface micromotions increase with less-conforming cementless glenoid components.

Daniel R Suárez1, Willem Nerkens, Edward R Valstar, Piet M Rozing, Fred van Keulen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal degree of conformity between the glenoid and humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty for best performance and durability is still a matter of debate. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of joint conformity on the bone-implant interface micromotions in a cementless glenoid implant.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polyethylene inlays with different degrees of conformity (radial mismatch of 0, 2, 4, and 6 mm) were mounted on a cementless metal back and then implanted in a bone substitute. These glenoid components were loaded by a prosthetic humeral head during a force-controlled experiment. Normal-to-interface micromotions and bone substitute deformations were measured at different points of the interface. Rim displacement and humeral head translation were also measured. A finite element (FE) model of the experiments was implemented to estimate the normal- and tangent-to-interface micromotions in the entire bone-implant interface.
RESULTS: All measured variables increased with less-conforming PE inlays. Normal-to-interface micromotions were significantly larger (P < .05) when the radial mismatch was 6 mm compared with the fully conforming inlay. The FE model was in agreement and complemented the experimental results. FE model-predicted interface micromotions were already significantly larger when the radial mismatch was equal to 4 mm. DISCUSSION: In a force-controlled experiment with a cementless glenoid component, a non-conforming PE inlay allows larger interface micromotions than a conforming inlay, reaching a magnitude that may hamper local bone ingrowth in this type of component. This is mainly because of the larger humeral head translation that boosts the effects of the so-called rocking-horse phenomenon. Copyright Â
© 2012 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21641827     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  7 in total

1.  Axillary view: arthritic glenohumeral anatomy and changes after ream and run.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Akash Gupta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Management of complications after revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hithem Rahmi; Andrew Jawa
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-03

3.  Stability of two versus three peripheral pegs of the glenoid component in modern total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Eugene F Stautberg; Daniel C Jupiter; Arsalan Amin; Ali A Qadeer; Omer A Ilahi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Benjamin C Service; Jason E Hsu; Jeremy S Somerson; Stacy M Russ; Frederick A Matsen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation.

Authors:  Diogo M Geraldes; Ulrich Hansen; Jonathan Jeffers; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains.

Authors:  Ran S Sopher; Andrew A Amis; James D Calder; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Impact of Modeling Assumptions on Stability Predictions in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mehul A Dharia; Jeffrey E Bischoff; David Schneider
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 4.566

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.