Literature DB >> 33030768

Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part II: Influence of loading and fixation design on tibial bone-implant interaction.

Fernando J Quevedo González1, Brett D Steineman1, Daniel R Sturnick1, Jonathan T Deland2, Constantine A Demetracopoulos2, Timothy M Wright1.   

Abstract

Finite element (FE) models to evaluate the burden placed on the interaction between total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) implants and the bone often rely on peak axial forces. However, the loading environment of the ankle is complex, and it is unclear whether peak axial forces represent a challenging scenario for the interaction between the implant and the bone. Our goal was to determine how the loads and the design of the fixation of the tibial component of TAA impact the interaction between the implant and the bone. To this end, we developed a framework that integrated robotic cadaveric simulations to determine the ankle kinematics, musculoskeletal models to determine the ankle joint loads, and FE models to evaluate the interaction between TAA and the bone. We compared the bone-implant micromotion and the risk of bone failure of three common fixation designs for the tibial component of TAA: spikes, a stem, and a keel. We found that the most critical conditions for the interaction between the implant and the bone were dependent on the specimen and the fixation design, but always involved submaximal forces and large moments. We also found that while the fixation design influenced the distribution and the peak value of bone-implant micromotion, the amount of bone at risk of failure was specimen dependent. To account for the most critical conditions for the interaction between the implant and the bone, our results support simulating multiple specimens under complex loading profiles that include multiaxial moments and span entire activity cycles.
© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  bone failure; finite element analysis; micromotion; total ankle arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33030768      PMCID: PMC7748995          DOI: 10.1002/jor.24876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  20 in total

1.  Influence of loading and activity on the primary stability of cementless tibial trays.

Authors:  Mark Taylor; David S Barrett; Daren Deffenbaugh
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  The modified super-ellipsoid yield criterion for human trabecular bone.

Authors:  Harun H Bayraktar; Atul Gupta; Ron Y Kwon; Panayiotis Papadopoulos; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  Analysis of bone-prosthesis interface micromotion for cementless tibial prosthesis fixation and the influence of loading conditions.

Authors:  Desmond Y R Chong; Ulrich N Hansen; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  Friction properties at the bone-metal interface: comparison of four different porous metal surfaces.

Authors:  M Dammak; A Shirazi-Adl; M Schwartz; L Gustavson
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1997-06-05

5.  Mechanical performance of cementless total knee replacements: It is not all about the maximum loads.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Joseph D Lipman; Darrick Lo; Ivan De Martino; Peter K Sculco; Thomas P Sculco; Fabio Catani; Timothy M Wright
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Validation of multiple subject-specific finite element models of unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  Mahmut Tuncer; Justin P Cobb; Ulrich N Hansen; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Prediction of structural failure of tibial bone models under physiological loads: effect of CT density-modulus relationships.

Authors:  Mahmut Tuncer; Ulrich N Hansen; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 2.242

8.  Initial instability in total ankle replacement: a cadaveric biomechanical investigation of the STAR and agility prostheses.

Authors:  Kurtis A McInnes; Alastair S E Younger; Thomas R Oxland
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Risk Factors for Failure of Total Ankle Arthroplasty With a Minimum Five Years of Follow-up.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Cody; Lorena Bejarano-Pineda; James R Lachman; Michel A Taylor; Elizabeth B Gausden; James K DeOrio; Mark E Easley; James A Nunley
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2018-10-21       Impact factor: 2.827

10.  Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains.

Authors:  Ran S Sopher; Andrew A Amis; James D Calder; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.242

View more
  2 in total

1.  Do Metaphyseal Cones and Stems Provide Any Biomechanical Advantage for Moderate Contained Tibial Defects in Revision TKA? A Finite-Element Analysis Based on a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Kathleen N Meyers; Nicholas Schraut; Kapil G Mehrotra; Joseph D Lipman; Timothy M Wright; Michael P Ast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.755

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.