Literature DB >> 25024029

What design and material factors impact the wear and corrosion performance in total elbow arthroplasties?

Mark P Figgie1, Timothy M Wright, Denise Drinkwater.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The survivorship of total elbow arthroplasties is lower than surgeons and patients would like it to be, especially in patients with posttraumatic arthritis of the elbow. To improve durability, it is important to understand the failure modes of existing implants. Total elbow arthroplasties were designed primarily for low-demand rheumatoid patients. As surgical indications have extended to more active patient populations, the mechanical performance of current designs must meet an increased mechanical burden. Evaluating the degree to which they do this will guide conclusions about which contemporary devices might still meet the need and, as importantly, what design and material changes might be needed to improve performance. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: The reasons for failures of total elbow arthroplasties include infection, loosening, polyethylene wear, locking mechanism failure, periprosthetic fracture, implant fracture, and instability. Implant design factors that have influenced wear include implant constraint, material, coatings, and metal backing. Surgical factors associated with increased wear and subsequent total elbow arthroplasty failure include soft tissue balancing and restoration of alignment and implant positioning. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: A clear need exists for improving the performance of total elbow arthroplasty. Many of the failures that have limited the survivorship of elbow arthroplasties thus far are mechanical in nature with wear-related problems a dominating influence. Much of what we know about the results of total elbow arthroplasty is from small studies frequently involving the designer of the implant. The establishment of total elbow arthroplasty registries coupled with the increasing regulatory burden of postmarket surveillance would lead to a better understanding of the complications and survivorship of elbow arthroplasties. Another primary goal must be to achieve a better understanding of the biomechanics of the normal elbow and how the mechanics are altered after the insertion of elbow arthroplasty components. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Improving the performance and survivorship of total elbow arthroplasty will require the integration of clinical and implant performance data gained through the establishment of registries with a concerted basic science effort to better understand the functional loads across the joint and to incorporate these loads into experimental and computational models to allow assessment of design and material changes intended to improve durability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25024029      PMCID: PMC4397764          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3781-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  42 in total

1.  Determination of the optimal elbow axis for evaluation of placement of prostheses.

Authors:  M Stokdijk; C G Meskers; H E Veeger; Y A de Boer; P M Rozing
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Total elbow arthroplasty with the Kudo prosthesis.

Authors:  R Reinhard; M van der Hoeven; M J de Vos; D Eygendaal
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Total replacement for post-traumatic arthritis of the elbow.

Authors:  B F Morrey; R A Adams; R S Bryan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-07

4.  Locking mechanism failure in semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mark P Figgie; Edwin P Su; Barbara Kahn; Joseph Lipman
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Loose-hinge total elbow arthroplasty. An experimental study of the effects of implant alignment on three-dimensional elbow kinematics.

Authors:  F Schuind; S O'Driscoll; S Korinek; K N An; B F Morrey
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Total elbow arthroplasty with use of a nonconstrained humeral component inserted without cement in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  H Kudo; K Iwano; J Nishino
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Cementless or hybrid total elbow arthroplasty with titanium-alloy implants. A study of interim clinical results and specific complications.

Authors:  H Kudo; K Iwano; J Nishino
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 8.  Revision total elbow replacement.

Authors:  M P Figgie; M Gerwin; A J Weiland
Journal:  Hand Clin       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 1.907

9.  Souter-Strathclyde total elbow arthroplasty.

Authors:  P Rozing
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-11

10.  Capitellocondylar total elbow replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term results.

Authors:  F C Ewald; E D Simmons; J A Sullivan; W H Thomas; R D Scott; R Poss; T S Thornhill; C B Sledge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Total Elbow Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Revision Surgery.

Authors:  Jae-Man Kwak; Kyoung-Hwan Koh; In-Ho Jeon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-12

2.  Finite element stress analysis of the bearing component and bone resected surfaces for total ankle replacement with different implant material combinations.

Authors:  Jian Yu; Dahang Zhao; Wen-Ming Chen; Pengfei Chu; Shuo Wang; Chao Zhang; Jiazhang Huang; Xu Wang; Xin Ma
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-01-19       Impact factor: 2.362

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.