Literature DB >> 24078529

Proximal tibial strain in medial unicompartmental knee replacements: A biomechanical study of implant design.

C E H Scott1, M J Eaton, R W Nutton, F A Wade, P Pankaj, S L Evans.   

Abstract

As many as 25% to 40% of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions are performed for pain, a possible cause of which is proximal tibial strain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on cortical and cancellous proximal tibial strain in a synthetic bone model. Composite Sawbone tibiae were implanted with cemented UKR components of different designs, either all-polyethylene or metal-backed. The tibiae were subsequently loaded in 500 N increments to 2500 N, unloading between increments. Cortical surface strain was measured using a digital image correlation technique. Cancellous damage was measured using acoustic emission, an engineering technique that detects sonic waves ('hits') produced when damage occurs in material. Anteromedial cortical surface strain showed significant differences between implants at 1500 N and 2500 N in the proximal 10 mm only (p < 0.001), with relative strain shielding in metal-backed implants. Acoustic emission showed significant differences in cancellous bone damage between implants at all loads (p = 0.001). All-polyethylene implants displayed 16.6 times the total number of cumulative acoustic emission hits as controls. All-polyethylene implants also displayed more hits than controls at all loads (p < 0.001), more than metal-backed implants at loads ≥ 1500 N (p < 0.001), and greater acoustic emission activity on unloading than controls (p = 0.01), reflecting a lack of implant stiffness. All-polyethylene implants were associated with a significant increase in damage at the microscopic level compared with metal-backed implants, even at low loads. All-polyethylene implants should be used with caution in patients who are likely to impose large loads across their knee joint.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acoustic emission; Digital image correlation; Pain; Tibial strain; Unicompartmental knee replacement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24078529     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B10.31644

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  11 in total

1.  The coronal alignment after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can be predicted: usefulness of full-length valgus stress radiography for evaluating correctability.

Authors:  Yasutaka Tashiro; Shuichi Matsuda; Ken Okazaki; Hideki Mizu-Uchi; Umito Kuwashima; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Early failure with the Journey-Deuce bicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A G Dudhniwala; N K Rath; S Joshy; M C Forster; S P White
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-03-21

3.  Obesity has no effect on outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Johannes F Plate; Marco A Augart; Thorsten M Seyler; Daniel N Bracey; Aneitra Hoggard; Michael Akbar; Riyaz H Jinnah; Gary G Poehling
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-04-12       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: all-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Vincenzo Sessa; Umberto Celentano
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  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

6.  Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model.

Authors:  C E H Scott; M J Eaton; R W Nutton; F A Wade; S L Evans; P Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.853

7.  Does a PEEK Femoral TKA Implant Preserve Intact Femoral Surface Strains Compared With CoCr? A Preliminary Laboratory Study.

Authors:  Kathryn E Rankin; Alexander S Dickinson; Adam Briscoe; Martin Browne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The effect of implant position on bone strain following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Model Using Digital Image Correlation.

Authors:  A M Ali; S D S Newman; P A Hooper; C M Davies; J P Cobb
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.853

9.  Ten-year survival and patient-reported outcomes of a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component.

Authors:  Chloe E H Scott; Frazer A Wade; Deborah MacDonald; Richard W Nutton
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  Mid-Term Outcomes of Metal-Backed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Show Superiority to All-Polyethylene Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Laura J Kleeblad; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2017-05-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.