Literature DB >> 21741289

Biomechanical evaluation of proximal tibial behavior following unicondylar knee arthroplasty: modified resected surface with corresponding surgical technique.

Tsung-Wei Chang1, Chan-Tsung Yang, Yu-Liang Liu, Wen-Chuan Chen, Kun-Jhih Lin, Yu-Shu Lai, Chang-Hung Huang, Yung-Chang Lu, Cheng-Kung Cheng.   

Abstract

Persistent pain and periprosthetic fracture of the proximal tibia are troublesome complications in modern unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). Surgical errors and acute corners on the resected surface can place excessive strains on the bone, leading to bone degeneration. This study attempted to lower strains by altering the orthogonal geometry and avoiding extended vertical saw cuts. Finite element models were utilized to predict biomechanical behavior and were subsequently compared against experimental data. On the resected surface of the extended saw cut model, the greatest strains showed a 50% increase over a standard implant; conversely, the strains decreased by 40% for the radial-corner shaped model. For all UKA models, the peak strains below the resection level increased by 40% relative to an intact tibia. There was no significant difference among the implanted models. This study demonstrated that a large increase in strains arises on the tibial plateau to resist a cantilever-like bending moment following UKA. Surgical errors generally weaken the tibial support and increase the risk of fractures. This study provides guidance on altering the orthogonal geometry into a radial-shape to reduce strains and avoid degenerative remodeling. Furthermore, it could be expected that predrilling a posteriorly sloped tunnel through the tibia prior to cutting could achieve greater accuracy in surgical preparations.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21741289     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2011.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  17 in total

1.  Morphometrical measurement of resected surface of medial and lateral proximal tibia for Chinese population.

Authors:  Tsung-Wei Chang; Chang-Hung Huang; Colin J McClean; Yu-Shu Lai; Yung-Chang Lu; Cheng-Kung Cheng
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The increase in posterior tibial slope provides a positive biomechanical effect in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kyoung-Tak Kang; Sae Kwang Kwon; Juhyun Son; Oh-Ryong Kwon; Jun-Sang Lee; Yong-Gon Koh
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Biomechanical analysis of proximal tibia bone grafting and the effect of the size of osteotomy using a validated finite element model.

Authors:  David Q K Ng; Chin Tat Lim; Amit K Ramruttun; Ken Jin Tan; Wilson Wang; Desmond Y R Chong
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 4.  Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Bart Stuyts; Tom Vandenlangenbergh; Philippe Cartier; Peter Fennema
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  A semi-automated measurement technique for the assessment of radiolucency.

Authors:  E C Pegg; B J L Kendrick; H G Pandit; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 4.118

6.  Finite element analysis of malposition in bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nicola Armillotta; Edoardo Bori; Bernardo Innocenti
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 2.928

7.  Evaluation of factors affecting tibial bone strain after unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  Elise C Pegg; Jonathan Walter; Stephen J Mellon; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Darryl D D'Lima; Benjamin J Fregly; Harinderjit S Gill
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Does Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Affect Tibial Bone Strain? A Paired Cadaveric Comparison of Fixed- and Mobile-bearing Designs.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Orcun Taylan; Joshua Slane; Ben Vanthienen; Jeroen Verhaegen; Lyne Anthonissen; G Harry van Lenthe; Thomas Heyse; Lennart Scheys
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 9.  Periprosthetic fractures after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a narrative review.

Authors:  L Thoreau; D Morcillo Marfil; E Thienpont
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.928

10.  Finite Element Analysis of Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The Influence of Tibial Component Coronal Alignment.

Authors:  Guang-Duo Zhu; Wan-Shou Guo; Qi-Dong Zhang; Zhao-Hui Liu; Li-Ming Cheng
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 2.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.