Literature DB >> 27237382

Damage in total knee replacements from mechanical overload.

William F Zimmerman1, Mark A Miller2, Richard J Cleary3, Timothy H Izant4, Kenneth A Mann5.   

Abstract

The mechanical loads acting across the knee joint following total knee replacements (TKR) during activities of daily living have recently been measured using instrumented TKRs. Using a series of postmortem retrieved TKR constructs we investigated whether these mechanical loads could result in damage to the implant bone interface or supporting bone in the tibia. Eighteen cemented en bloc tibial components (0 to 22 years in service) were loaded under axial compression in increments from 1 to 10 times body weight and digital image correlation was used to measure bone strain and interface micromotion during loading and unloading. Failure was considered to occur when micromotion exceeded 150µm or compressive bone strain exceeded 7300με. The results show that all retrieved specimens had sufficient bone strength to support most activities of daily living, but ~40% would be at risk under larger physiologic loads that might occur secondary to a higher impacts such as jogging or a stumble. The tray-bone micromotion (regression model R(2)=0.48, p=0.025) was greater for donors with lower age at implantation (p=0.0092). Proximal bone strain (model R(2)=0.46, p=0.03) was greater for donors with longer time in service (p=0.021). Distal bone strain (model R(2)=0.58, p=0.005) was greater for donors with more time in service (p=0.0054) and lower peri-implant BMD (p=0.049). High mechanical overload of a single or repetitive nature may be an initiating factor in aseptic loosening of total joint arthroplasties and should be avoided in order to prolong the life of the implant.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aseptic loosening; Bone damage; Micromotion; Postmortem retrievals; Total knee replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27237382      PMCID: PMC4907888          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.05.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomech        ISSN: 0021-9290            Impact factor:   2.712


  26 in total

Review 1.  Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets.

Authors:  G Labek; M Thaler; W Janda; M Agreiter; B Stöckl
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-03

2.  The influence of tibial component fixation techniques on resorption of supporting bone stock after total knee replacement.

Authors:  Desmond Y R Chong; Ulrich N Hansen; Rene van der Venne; Nico Verdonschot; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions.

Authors:  M Jasty; C Bragdon; D Burke; D O'Connor; J Lowenstein; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Kevin L Ong; Edmund Lau; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Retrieval analysis of total knee prostheses: a method and its application to 48 total condylar prostheses.

Authors:  R W Hood; T M Wright; A H Burstein
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1983-09

Review 6.  Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?

Authors:  A V Lombardi; K R Berend; J B Adams
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 7.  Knee joint forces: prediction, measurement, and significance.

Authors:  Darryl D D'Lima; Benjamin J Fregly; Shantanu Patil; Nikolai Steklov; Clifford W Colwell
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.617

8.  Fluid pressure and flow as a cause of bone resorption.

Authors:  Anna Fahlgren; Mathias P G Bostrom; Xu Yang; Lars Johansson; Ulf Edlund; Fredrik Agholme; Per Aspenberg
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years?

Authors:  Peter F Sharkey; Paul M Lichstein; Chao Shen; Anthony T Tokarski; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Standardized loads acting in knee implants.

Authors:  Georg Bergmann; Alwina Bender; Friedmar Graichen; Jörn Dymke; Antonius Rohlmann; Adam Trepczynski; Markus O Heller; Ines Kutzner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  A modelling approach demonstrating micromechanical changes in the tibial cemented interface due to in vivo service.

Authors:  Priyanka Srinivasan; Mark A Miller; Nico Verdonschot; Kenneth A Mann; Dennis Janssen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Reduced tibial strain-shielding with extraosseous total knee arthroplasty revision system.

Authors:  Tomas A Correa; Bidyut Pal; Richard J van Arkel; Felice Vanacore; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Finite element analysis of the tibial bone graft in cementless total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Koji Totoribe; Etsuo Chosa; Go Yamako; Hiroaki Hamada; Koki Ouchi; Shutaro Yamashita; Gang Deng
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  The biomechanical effect of different posterior tibial slopes on the tibiofemoral joint after posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yingpeng Wang; Songhua Yan; Jizhou Zeng; Kuan Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.359

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.