| Literature DB >> 31311570 |
Yong-Gon Koh1, Jin-Ah Lee2, Hwa-Yong Lee2, Heoung-Jae Chun2, Hyo-Jeong Kim3, Kyoung-Tak Kang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) is a common treatment for moderate osteoarthritis of the medial compartment in the knee joint by the translation of the force center toward the lateral compartment. However, the stability of a short plate such as Puddu used in this procedure was not as effective as other long plates such as Tomofix. No previous studies have used a rigorous and systematic design optimization method to determine the optimal shape of short HTO plate. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the improved biomechanical stability of a short HTO plate by using design optimization and finite element (FE) analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Design optimization; Finite element analysis; High tibial osteotomy
Year: 2019 PMID: 31311570 PMCID: PMC6636153 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1269-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Specifications of the opening wedge HTO used in this study. Three edges aa, bb, and cc along the medial opening were defined to evaluate the height changes in weight-bearing condition
Fig. 2Finite element models for a the Puddu plate and b the TomoFix plate
Fig. 3Loading boundary conditions used in this study. a Physiological and surgical load. b Loads on the four regions of the tibial plateau
Fig. 4Parameters in geometry of the initial HTO plate
Orthogonal array of the HTO used in this study
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #01 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| #02 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| #03 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| #04 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| #05 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| #06 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| #07 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| #08 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| #09 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| #10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| #11 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| #12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| #13 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| #14 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| #15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| #16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| #17 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| #18 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| #19 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| #20 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| #21 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| #22 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| #23 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| #24 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| #25 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| #26 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| #27 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
Three levels of parameters with ± 10% from the initial value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | 19.8 | 14.4 | 19.8 | 14.4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 5.625 | 5.625 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| Level 2 | 22.0 | 16.0 | 22.0 | 16.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.250 | 6.250 | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Level 3 | 24.2 | 17.6 | 24.2 | 17.6 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 6.875 | 6.875 | 3.3 | 4.4 |
Fig. 5Results of sensitivity analysis of the 12 geometric design variables for the HTO plate
Results of the sensitivity analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Error sums of squares | 14.64171 | 23.19086 | 22.08115 | 28.23486 | 14.37088 | 36.0166 |
| Total sum of SS | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 |
| Contribution ratio (%) | 6.45 | 10.22 | 9.73 | 12.44 | 6.33 | 15.87 |
| Significant factor | 9 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Error sums of squares | 18.89502 | 29.97681 | 18.3203 | 18.48094 | 1.739026 | 0.954858 |
| Total sum of SS | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 | 226.903 |
| Contribution ratio (%) | 8.33 | 13.21 | 8.07 | 8.14 | 0.77 | 0.42 |
| Significant factor | 6 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 12 |
Fig. 6Comparison of the average stresses on the bone, plate, and screw with respect to three difference HTO plates
Fig. 7Stress distribution of the bone in the Puddu plate and comparison of the stress distribution on the plate and bone with respect to three difference HTO plates
Fig. 8Comparison of the micromotion at edges aa, bb, and cc with respect to different design