Literature DB >> 22267212

Influence of loading and activity on the primary stability of cementless tibial trays.

Mark Taylor1, David S Barrett, Daren Deffenbaugh.   

Abstract

Several potential advantages exist for cementless tibial fixation including preservation of bone stock and increased longevity of fixation. However, clinical results have been variable, with reports of extensive radiolucent lines, rapid early migration, and aseptic loosening. The primary stability of an implant depends on the micromotion of the bone-implant interface, which depends on the kinematics and kinetics of the replaced joint. Finite element analysis was used to examine the micromotion for different activities (walking, stair ascent, stair descent, stand-to-sit, and deep knee bend) for three commercially available tibial tray designs. Similar trends were observed for all three designs across the range of activities. Stair ascent and descent generated the highest micromotions, closely followed by level gait. Across these activities, the mean peak (maximum) micromotions measured across the entire resected surface ranged from 64 to 78 (186-239) µm for PFC Sigma, 61-72 (199-251) µm for LCS Complete Duofix, and 92-106 (229-264) µm for LCS Complete. The peak micromotions did not necessarily occur at the peak loads. For instance, the peak micromotions for level walking occurred when there were low axial forces, but moderate varus-valgus moments. This highlights the need to examine the whole gait cycle to properly determine the initial stability of tibial tray designs. By exploring a range of activities and interrogating the entire resected surface, it is possible to differentiate between the relative performance of different implant designs.
Copyright © 2012 Orthopaedic Research Society.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22267212     DOI: 10.1002/jor.22056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  9 in total

Review 1.  Biomechanical behaviours of the bone-implant interface: a review.

Authors:  Xing Gao; Manon Fraulob; Guillaume Haïat
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part II: Influence of loading and fixation design on tibial bone-implant interaction.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Brett D Steineman; Daniel R Sturnick; Jonathan T Deland; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Timothy M Wright
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part I: Joint loads during simulated level walking.

Authors:  Brett D Steineman; Fernando J Quevedo González; Daniel R Sturnick; Jonathan T Deland; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Timothy M Wright
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  Do Metaphyseal Cones and Stems Provide Any Biomechanical Advantage for Moderate Contained Tibial Defects in Revision TKA? A Finite-Element Analysis Based on a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Kathleen N Meyers; Nicholas Schraut; Kapil G Mehrotra; Joseph D Lipman; Timothy M Wright; Michael P Ast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: The role of stems.

Authors:  Shuqiao Xie; Noel Conlisk; David Hamilton; Chloe Scott; Richard Burnett; Pankaj Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 5.853

6.  Elastography of the bone-implant interface.

Authors:  Yoann Hériveaux; Vu-Hieu Nguyen; Didier Geiger; Guillaume Haïat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Statistical Modeling of Lower Limb Kinetics During Deep Squat and Forward Lunge.

Authors:  Joris De Roeck; J Van Houcke; D Almeida; P Galibarov; L De Roeck; Emmanuel A Audenaert
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-04-02

8.  Micromotion at the tibial plateau in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: fixed versus rotating platform designs.

Authors:  S R Small; R D Rogge; R A Malinzak; E M Reyes; P L Cook; K A Farley; M A Ritter
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.853

9.  Early aseptic loosening of a mobile-bearing total knee replacement.

Authors:  Ines Kutzner; Geir Hallan; Paul Johan Høl; Ove Furnes; Øystein Gøthesen; Wender Figved; Peter Ellison
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.717

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.