| Literature DB >> 25012591 |
Maxim L Golovakhа, Weniamin Orljanski, Karl-Peter Benedetto, Sergey Panchenko, Philippe Büchler, Philipp Henle, Emin Aghayev1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy is a well-established procedure for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis and symptomatic varus malalignment. We hypothesized that different fixation devices generate different fixation stability profiles for the various wedge sizes in a finite element (FE) analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25012591 PMCID: PMC4105235 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-230
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Figure 1Model of plates. a) First generation Puddu plate, b) Second generation Puddu plate, c) TomoFix plate with locking head screws.
Figure 2Calculation of bone-plate models (a, b, c) and FE model (d).
Figure 3The distribution of stresses in the σ plane in the bone in the entire volume (a) and in the zones of stress concentration (b-e) for the osteosynthesis with the first generation Puddu plate.
The stresses in bone at the corresponding points in brackets (s. Figure 4) at different wedge openings
| First generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 8.0 (a) | −23.7 (b) | 15.9 (a) | −6.6 (a) | 15.1 (c) | −35.9 (b) | 45.8 (b) |
| 10.5 | 3.6 (a) | −27.2 (b) | 11.4 (a) | −19.9 (b) | 14.7 (c) | −40.7 (b) | 39.6 (b) | |
| 12.5 | 4.4 (c) | −28.0 (b) | 11.6 (a) | −22.4 (b) | 12.9 (c) | −40.0 (b) | 40.5 (b) | |
| 17.5 | 4.8 (c) | −27.1 (b) | 11.9 (a) | −17.9 (b) | 12.4 (c) | −38.5 (b) | 50.9 (b) | |
| | 22.5 | 3.0 (c) | −26.9 (a) | 11.5 (a) | −6.6 (a) | 8.9 (c) | −26.1 (b) | 29.2 (b) |
| Second generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 3.3 (a) | −25.9 (b) | 10.8 (a) | −15.3 (b) | 6.8 (c) | −34.4 (b) | 23.6 (b) |
| 10.5 | 3.5 (a) | −27.3 (b) | 10.9 (a) | −18.0 (b) | 8.5 (c) | −32.2 (b) | 38.4 (b) | |
| 12.5 | 3.4 (a) | −29.1 (b) | 10.9 (a) | −19.2 (b) | 7.0 (c) | −33.9 (b) | 39.5 (b) | |
| 17.5 | 3.3 (a) | −29.9 (b) | 11.4 (a) | −18.5 (b) | 8.1 (c) | −31.2 (b) | 40.5 (b) | |
| | 22.5 | 2.6 (c) | −26.1 (a) | 10.9 (a) | −6.4 (a) | 5.8 (c) | −25.4 (b) | 29.9 (b) |
| TomoFix plate with bone graft | 7.5 | 7.1 (c) | −23.6 (a) | 12.4 (a) | −6.4 (d) | 6.2 (c) | −10.6 (d) | 25.4 (a) |
| 10.5 | 12.9 (c) | −29.9 (a) | 8.88 (a) | −5.9 (d) | 5.4 (c) | −10.4 (d) | 32.0 (a) | |
| 12.5 | 6.7 (c) | −29.9 (a) | 9.16 (a) | −5.8 (d) | 4.4 (c) | −10.4 (d) | 32.7 (a) | |
| 17.5 | 7.7 (c) | −20.5 (a) | 9.68 (a) | −6.3 (d) | 5.4 (c) | −11.1 (d) | 23.0 (a) | |
| | 22.5 | 5.6 (d) | −23.8 (a) | 11.0 (a) | −6.1 (d) | 4.7 (c) | −11.6 (d) | 27.2 (a) |
| TomoFix plate without bone graft | 7.5 | 21.1 (a) | −25.8 (a) | 13.2 (a) | −7.2 (d) | 8.6 (c) | −12.9 (d) | 25.8 (a) |
| 10.5 | 7.8 (c) | −33.2 (a) | 13.8 (a) | −7.6 (d) | 4.8 (c) | −13.4 (d) | 31.3 (a) | |
| 12.5 | 6.7 (c) | −32.7 (a) | 13.9 (a) | −7.3 (d) | 7.0 (c) | −13.2 (d) | 31.5 (a) | |
| 17.5 | 6.1 (c) | −31.4 (a) | 11.4 (a) | −6.5 (d) | 7.5 (c) | −14.1 (d) | 31.7 (a) | |
| 22.5 | 14.8 (a) | −24.1 (a) | 13.4 (a) | −7.4 (c) | 5.7 (c) | −14.9 (d) | 25.7 (a) |
Figure 4Localization of the stresses for Puddu (a-c) and TomoFix plates (a, c, d) specified in Table 1. a) The point at the conjunction between the proximal and distal tibia fragment; b) The contact point of the proximal bone fragment and the metal insert; c) The point at the screw hole just above the osteotomy; d) The point at the edge of the most distal screw hole in the distal tibia fragment.
The relative displacement of the proximal and distal tibia fragments at different wedge openings
| First generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 0.9 |
| 10.5 | 1.0 | |
| 12.5 | 1.1 | |
| 17.5 | 1.4 | |
| | 22.5 | 1.3 |
| Second generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 0.1 |
| 10.5 | 0.5 | |
| 12.5 | 0.6 | |
| 17.5 | 1.0 | |
| | 22.5 | 0.9 |
| TomoFix plate with bone graft | 7.5 | 7.2 |
| 10.5 | 8.6 | |
| 12.5 | 9.5 | |
| 17.5 | 10.8 | |
| | 22.5 | 8.1 |
| TomoFix plate without bone graft | 7.5 | 24.5 |
| 10.5 | 24.0 | |
| 12.5 | 23.5 | |
| 17.5 | 22.4 | |
| 22.5 | 17.1 |
The stresses in the plates at different wedge openings
| First generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 10.2 | −31.9 | 37.5 |
| 10.5 | 15.8 | −38.1 | 48.6 | |
| 12.5 | 18.9 | −33.2 | 42.4 | |
| 17.5 | 22.9 | −34.9 | 49.7 | |
| | 22.5 | 34.3 | −28.9 | 34.7 |
| Second generation Puddu plate | 7.5 | 46.2 | −55.3 | 43.2 |
| 10.5 | 45.9 | −52.5 | 42.9 | |
| 12.5 | 45.5 | −48.5 | 47.2 | |
| 17.5 | 44.1 | −43.4 | 48.2 | |
| | 22.5 | 55.9 | −69.0 | 52.6 |
| TomoFix plate with bone graft | 7.5 | 35.0 | −94.1 | 91.8 |
| 10.5 | 37.5 | −99.1 | 97.7 | |
| 12.5 | 39.0 | −104.0 | 102.0 | |
| 17.5 | 41.5 | −109.0 | 108.0 | |
| | 22.5 | 42.0 | −115.0 | 110.0 |
| TomoFix plate without bone graft | 7.5 | 79.3 | −200.0 | 205.0 |
| 10.5 | 80.6 | −197.0 | 204.0 | |
| 12.5 | 79.4 | −197.0 | 205.0 | |
| 17.5 | 79.5 | −193.0 | 205.0 | |
| 22.5 | 79.9 | −200.0 | 208.0 |
Figure 5The distributions of σ stresses in the (a) first and (b) second generation Puddu plates in the entire volume and in zones of stress concentration (c-h).
Figure 6The distribution of stresses σ in the bone (a-d) and the TomoFix plate (e, f) with bone graft.
Stresses along the screw channels in bone
| First generation Puddu plate | 1 | Upper | | |
| Lower | | |||
| 2 | Upper | | ||
| | Lower | | ||
| Second generation Puddu plate | 1 | Upper | 1.50 | |
| Lower | | |||
| 2 | Upper | | ||
| | Lower | | ||
| TomoFix with bone graft | 1 | Upper | | 0.34 |
| Lower | | 0.41 | ||
| 2 | Upper | 0.78 | | |
| Lower | | |||
| 3 | Upper | | 0.28 | |
| Lower | | 1.20 | ||
| 4 | Upper | | 0.55 | |
| Lower | | 1.08 | ||
| 5 | Upper | | 0.34 | |
| Lower | | 0.87 | ||
| 6 | Upper | | 0.25 | |
| | Lower | | 0.48 | |
| TomoFix without bone graft | 1 | Upper | | 0.53 |
| Lower | | 0.58 | ||
| 2 | Upper | 0.78 | | |
| Lower | | |||
| 3 | Upper | | ||
| Lower | | |||
| 4 | Upper | | ||
| Lower | | |||
| 5 | Upper | | 0.46 | |
| Lower | | 0.98 | ||
| 6 | Upper | | 0.35 | |
| Lower | 0.76 |
Note: the values exceeding the maximum allowable threshold for the stresses on the screw are in bold.