Literature DB >> 9144596

Bone strength and material properties of the glenoid.

L H Frich1, N C Jensen, A Odgaard, C M Pedersen, J O Søjbjerg, M Dalstra.   

Abstract

The quality of the glenoid bone is important to a successful total shoulder replacement. Finite element models have been used to model the response of the glenoid bone to an implanted prosthesis. Because very little is known about the bone strength and the material properties at the glenoid, these models were all based on assumptions that the material properties of the glenoid were similar to those of the tibial plateau. The osteopenetrometer was used to assess the topographic strength distribution at the glenoid. Strength at the proximal subchondral level of the glenoid averaged 66.9 MPa. Higher peak values were measured posteriorly, superiorly, and anteriorly to the area of maximum concavity of the glenoid joint surface known as the bare area. One millimeter underneath the subchondral plate, average strength decreased by 25%, and at the 2 mm level strength decreased by 70%. The contribution of the cortical bone to the total glenoid strength was assessed by compression tests of pristine and cancellous-free glenoid specimens. Strength decreased by an average of 31% after the cancellous bone was removed. The material properties of the glenoid cancellous bone were determined by axial compression tests of bone specimens harvested from the central part of the glenoid subchondral area. The elastic modulus varied from approximately 100 MPa at the glenoid bare area to 400 MPa at the superior part of the glenoid. With the elastic constants used a predictor of the mechanical anisotropy, the average anisotropy ratio was 5.2, indicating strong anisotropy. The apparent density was an average 0.35 gr. cm-3, and the Poisson ratio averaged 0.263. According to our findings the anisotropy of the glenoid cancellous bone, details concerning the strength distribution, and the load-bearing function of the cortical shell should be considered in future finite element models of the glenoid.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9144596     DOI: 10.1016/s1058-2746(97)90029-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  11 in total

1.  About the variability of the shape of the glenoid cavity.

Authors:  L F De Wilde; B M Berghs; E Audenaert; G Sys; G O Van Maele; E Barbaix
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2003-09-19       Impact factor: 1.246

2.  Finite element analysis of the strain distribution in the humeral head tubercles during abduction: comparison of young and osteoporotic bone.

Authors:  Ph Clavert; M Zerah; J Krier; P Mille; J F Kempf; J L Kahn
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2006-08-26       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Multi-patient finite element simulation of keeled versus pegged glenoid implant designs in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Werner Pomwenger; Karl Entacher; Herbert Resch; Peter Schuller-Götzburg
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.602

4.  Version Correction via Eccentric Reaming Compromises Remaining Bone Quality in B2 Glenoids: A Computational Study.

Authors:  Xiang Chen; Akhil S Reddy; Andreas Kontaxis; Daniel S Choi; Timothy Wright; David M Dines; Russell F Warren; Julien Berhouet; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  In vitro measurement of temperature changes during implantation of cemented glenoid components.

Authors:  Patric Raiss; Guido Pape; Sebastian Jäger; Markus Loew; Rudi Bitsch; Markus Rickert
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Stress distribution in the humerus during elevation of the arm and external abduction.

Authors:  V Filardi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-02-04

7.  The Effect of Torque Differences for All-Suture Anchor Fixation Strength: A Biomechanical Analysis.

Authors:  Lucca Lacheta; Jon Miles; Brenton Douglass; Peter Millett
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-02-25

8.  Structural strength of cancellous specimens from bovine femur under cyclic compression.

Authors:  Kaori Endo; Satoshi Yamada; Masahiro Todoh; Masahiko Takahata; Norimasa Iwasaki; Shigeru Tadano
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation.

Authors:  Diogo M Geraldes; Ulrich Hansen; Jonathan Jeffers; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  How to deal with a glenoid fracture.

Authors:  Lars Henrik Frich; Morten Schultz Larsen
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-05-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.