header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

13 – INTERFACE DISTRACTION AND LOOSENING OF THE POLYETHYLENE GLENOID IMPLANT FOR VARIOUS JOINT LOADING MODALITIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR FAILURE IN TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY



Abstract

Purpose: Loosening of glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty is a common clinical problem which can necessitate revision surgery. The mechanism of loosening is poorly understood and may relate to implant design, component fixation techniques, and interfacial tensile stresses. We are unaware of any studies that have examined the fundamental aspects of load transfer to bone for various joint loading configurations. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of joint loading on bone strain adjacent to a poly-ethylene glenoid implant.

Method: Five specimens (4 males; avg age: 59.5 yrs) implanted with a cemented, all polyethylene component (Anatomical Shoulder; Zimmer) were tested using an apparatus capable of producing loading vectors with various angles, magnitudes and directions. Each specimen was tested using a ramp load of 0–150 N (at 10N/sec) in two directions (superior and inferior) and with six angles of load application. A uniaxial strain gauge was placed in each of the four quadrants of the glenoid, approximately 1 mm medial to the glenoid rim. The primary axis of each strain gauge was oriented medio-laterally to record bone strains. The humeral head was simulated by a custom steel ball with a radius of curvature consistent with a nonconforming humeral prosthesis.

Results: The relationship between strain and applied force was not linear (superior quadrant at 40o: linear fit R2=0.96; quadratic fit R2=0.999; p< 0.0005), and was dependent on the loading angle. During pure compressive loading, tension was observed in the superior and inferior quadrants of the glenoid; while less consistent results in the anterior and posterior quadrants revealed variable tension and compression. Superior and inferior loading each caused increasing ipsilateral tension, occurring from 0–30o and 0–20o, respectively.

Conclusion: The current study is thought to be the first to directly measure load transfer at the implant-bone interface. We demonstrated load transfer nonlinearities between a surgically implanted glenoid component and the underlying bone in all locations and for a wide range of loading conditions. This has important implications towards the modeling of these constructs using finite element analyses. The results also illustrate tensile loading during compressive and small eccentricity loading cases. These results suggest a polyethylene flexure, causing the periphery of the glenoid implant to flex upwards placing the cement mantle and underlying bone in tension. Tensile loads that are linked to cement mantle fracture and implant loosening are produced under loading conditions associated with activities of daily living. This study has provided insight into the mechanisms of load transfer between a cemented polyethylene glenoid implant and the underlying bone. Reduction or elimination of these interfacial tensile stresses around the glenoid periphery should be considered when developing novel methods for component fixation.

Correspondence should be addressed to: COA, 4150 Ste. Catherine St. West Suite 360, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada. Email: meetings@canorth.org