Hyung Jun Park1, Tae Soo Bae2, Seung-Baik Kang1, Hyeong Ho Baek2, Moon Jong Chang1, Chong Bum Chang3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME), Jungwon University, Chungcheongbuk-do, South Korea. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implant material is a more important factor for periprosthetic tibial bone resorption than implant design after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The virtual perturbation study was planned to perform using single case of proximal tibia model. We determined whether the implant materials' stiffness affects the degree of periprosthetic tibial bone resorption, and whether the effect of material change with the same implant design differed according to the proximal tibial plateau areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This three-dimensional finite element analysis included two cobalt-chromium (CoCr) and two titanium (Ti) tibial implants with different designs. They were implanted into the proximal tibial model reconstructed using extracted images from computed tomography. The degree of bone resorption or formation was measured using the strain energy density after applying axial load. The same analysis was performed after exchanging the materials while maintaining the design of each implant. RESULTS: The degree of periprosthetic tibial bone resorption was not determined by the type of implant materials alone. When the implant materials were changed from Ti to CoCr, the bone resorption in the medial compartment increased and vice versa. The effect of material composition's change on anterior and posterior areas varied accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: Although the degree of bone resorption was associated with implant materials, it differed depending on the design of each implant. The effect on the degree of bone resorption according to the materials after TKA should be evaluated while concomitantly considering design.
INTRODUCTION: Implant material is a more important factor for periprosthetic tibial bone resorption than implant design after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The virtual perturbation study was planned to perform using single case of proximal tibia model. We determined whether the implant materials' stiffness affects the degree of periprosthetic tibial bone resorption, and whether the effect of material change with the same implant design differed according to the proximal tibial plateau areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This three-dimensional finite element analysis included two cobalt-chromium (CoCr) and two titanium (Ti) tibial implants with different designs. They were implanted into the proximal tibial model reconstructed using extracted images from computed tomography. The degree of bone resorption or formation was measured using the strain energy density after applying axial load. The same analysis was performed after exchanging the materials while maintaining the design of each implant. RESULTS: The degree of periprosthetic tibial bone resorption was not determined by the type of implant materials alone. When the implant materials were changed from Ti to CoCr, the bone resorption in the medial compartment increased and vice versa. The effect of material composition's change on anterior and posterior areas varied accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: Although the degree of bone resorption was associated with implant materials, it differed depending on the design of each implant. The effect on the degree of bone resorption according to the materials after TKA should be evaluated while concomitantly considering design.
Authors: Peter F Sharkey; William J Hozack; Richard H Rothman; Shani Shastri; Sidney M Jacoby Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Christine E Draper; Andrew Quon; Michael Fredericson; Thor F Besier; Scott L Delp; Gary S Beaupre; Garry E Gold Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Maxwell J Munford; Jennifer C Stoddart; Alexander D Liddle; Justin P Cobb; Jonathan R T Jeffers Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Byung W Cho; Kyoung-Tak Kang; Hyuck M Kwon; Woo-Suk Lee; Ick H Yang; Ji H Nam; Yong-Gon Koh; Kwan K Park Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 4.410