Literature DB >> 27255451

Number of pegs influence focal stress distributions and micromotion in glenoid implants: a finite element study.

Abdul Hadi Abdul Wahab1, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Kadir2, Muhammad Noor Harun3, Tunku Kamarul4, Ardiyansyah Syahrom3.   

Abstract

The present study was conducted to compare the stability of four commercially available implants by investigating the focal stress distributions and relative micromotion using finite element analysis. Variations in the numbers of pegs between the implant designs were tested. A load of 750 N was applied at three different glenoid positions (SA: superior-anterior; SP: superior-posterior; C: central) to mimic off-center and central loadings during activities of daily living. Focal stress distributions and relative micromotion were measured using Marc Mentat software. The results demonstrated that by increasing the number of pegs from two to five, the total focal stress volumes exceeding 5 MPa, reflecting the stress critical volume (SCV) as the threshold for occurrence of cement microfractures, decreased from 8.41 to 5.21 % in the SA position and from 9.59 to 6.69 % in the SP position. However, in the C position, this change in peg number increased the SCV from 1.37 to 5.86 %. Meanwhile, micromotion appeared to remain within 19-25 µm irrespective of the number of pegs used. In conclusion, four-peg glenoid implants provide the best configuration because they had lower SCV values compared with lesser-peg implants, preserved more bone stock, and reduced PMMA cement usage compared with five-peg implants.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Finite element analysis; Orthopedics; Stress critical volume; Total shoulder arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27255451     DOI: 10.1007/s11517-016-1525-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  40 in total

1.  Finite element analysis of the mechanical behavior of a scapula implanted with a glenoid prosthesis.

Authors:  B Couteau; P Mansat; E Estivalèzes; R Darmana; M Mansat; J Egan
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Mechanical testing of shoulder prostheses and recommendations for glenoid design.

Authors:  C Anglin; U P Wyss; D R Pichora
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of a novel glenoid design in total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Vincent M Wang; Ramaswamy Krishnan; Obinwanne F C Ugwonali; Evan L Flatow; Louis U Bigliani; Gerard A Ateshian
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Terrier; Philippe Büchler; Alain Farron
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Evaluation of the glenoid implant survival using a biomechanical finite element analysis: influence of the implant design, bone properties, and loading location.

Authors:  P Mansat; J Briot; M Mansat; P Swider
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Correction of acquired glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis with a standard versus an augmented glenoid component.

Authors:  Vani Sabesan; Mark Callanan; Vinay Sharma; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 3.019

7.  Factors influencing stability at the interface between a porous surface and cancellous bone: a finite element analysis of a canine in vivo micromotion experiment.

Authors:  B S Ramamurti; T E Orr; C R Bragdon; J D Lowenstein; M Jasty; W H Harris
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1997-08

8.  Results of anatomic nonconstrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid.

Authors:  Gilles Walch; Claudio Moraga; Allan Young; Juan Castellanos-Rosas
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Liftoff resistance of augmented glenoid components during cyclic fatigue loading in the posterior-superior direction.

Authors:  Joseph P Iannotti; Kyle E Lappin; Conrad L Klotz; Erik W Reber; Steve W Swope
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 10.  Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymmetric posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jason E Hsu; Eric T Ricchetti; G Russell Huffman; Joseph P Iannotti; David L Glaser
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-06-22       Impact factor: 3.019

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.