Literature DB >> 36267389

Personalizing Revision Tibial Baseplate Position and Stem Trajectory With Custom Implants Using 3D Modeling to Optimize Press-fit Stem Placement.

Charlotte Cooperman1, Daniel Wiznia2, Kunsel Kunsel1, Gregory Roytman1, Lidia Ani2, Donald Pratola3, Gwo-Chin Lee4, Steven Tommasini1, Jenna Bernstein5.   

Abstract

Background: A common tibial construct for revision total knee arthroplasty includes a long diaphyseal engaging press-fit stem. Due to tibial canal bowing, compromises are often necessary to match patient anatomy when choosing stemmed implants. The objective of this study is to determine through 3-D modeling whether current implant press-fit options appropriately fit patient anatomy, or whether an alternative angle between the stem and baseplate could increase the cortical engagement of long press-fit tibial stems.
Methods: Preoperative computerized tomography scans from 100 patients undergoing TKA were imported into an image-processing software program. Three-dimensional models were created with tibial stems placed at a fixed perpendicular angle and a custom angle to the revision tibial baseplate. Stem diameter, depth, offset, and contact surface area were measured and analyzed between the 2 groups.
Results: Significantly more cortical contact, larger stem diameter, and smaller offset of the custom keel from the center of the baseplate were associated with free custom tibial stem placement vs a fixed perpendicular baseplate-stem interface (P < .001). Statistically significant differences were also found between different patient demographics. Conclusions: Custom free-angle stem placement allows for increased stem diameter and cortical contact of press-fit tibial stems compared to existing constructs that must interface with the baseplate at a 90-degree angle. Current revision tibia implants limit fixation of tibial press-fit stems and often mismatch with patient anatomy. Alternative ways to fit patient anatomy may be beneficial for patients with extreme mismatch. In the future, custom keel angles may help to resolve this problem.
© 2022 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D modeling; Press-fit stem; Revision total knee; Total knee replacement

Year:  2022        PMID: 36267389      PMCID: PMC9576531          DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.08.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroplast Today        ISSN: 2352-3441


  24 in total

1.  The elastic and ultimate properties of compact bone tissue.

Authors:  D T Reilly; A H Burstein
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1975       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  Trabecular bone modulus-density relationships depend on anatomic site.

Authors:  Elise F Morgan; Harun H Bayraktar; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  The role of offset stems in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrea Baldini; Giovanni Balato; Vincenzo Franceschini
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

4.  Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Anay Rajendra Patel; Brian Barlow; Amar S Ranawat
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

5.  Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Gavin C Wood; Douglas D R Naudie; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Optimizing Mechanical Alignment With Modular Stems in Revision TKA.

Authors:  Andrew N Fleischman; Ibrahim Azboy; Camilo Restrepo; Mitchell G Maltenfort; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Cemented versus Cementless Stems in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Adam S Driesman; William Macaulay; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 8.  Considerations for reporting finite element analysis studies in biomechanics.

Authors:  Ahmet Erdemir; Trent M Guess; Jason Halloran; Srinivas C Tadepalli; Tina M Morrison
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Finite element analysis of the proximal femur and hip fracture risk in older men.

Authors:  Eric S Orwoll; Lynn M Marshall; Carrie M Nielson; Steven R Cummings; Jodi Lapidus; Jane A Cauley; Kristine Ensrud; Nancy Lane; Paul R Hoffmann; David L Kopperdahl; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 6.741

10.  Effect of different CT scanners and settings on femoral failure loads calculated by finite element models.

Authors:  Florieke Eggermont; Loes C Derikx; Jeffrey Free; Ruud van Leeuwen; Yvette M van der Linden; Nico Verdonschot; Esther Tanck
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 3.494

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.