Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Mechanical overloading of the knee can occur during activities of daily living such as stair climbing, jogging, etc. In this finite element study we aim to investigate which parameters could detrimentally influence peri-implant bone in the tibial reconstructed knee. Bone quality and patient variables are potential factors influencing knee overloading (Zimmerman 2016).
METHODS
Finite element (FE) models of post-mortem retrieved tibial specimens (n=7) from a previous study (Zimmerman 2016) were created using image segmentation (Mimics Materialise v14) of CT scan data (0.6 mm voxel resolution). Tibial tray and polyethylene inserts were recreated from CT data and measurements of the specimens (Solidworks 2015). Specimens with varying implant geometry (keel/pegged) were chosen for this study. A cohesive layer between bone and cement was included to simulate the behavior of the bone–cement interface using experimentally obtained values. The FE models predict plasticity of bone according to Keyak (2005). Models were loaded to 10 body weight (BW) and then reduced to 1 BW to mimic experimental measurements. Axial FE bone strains at 1 BW were compared with experimental Digital Image Correlation (DIC) bone strains on cut sections of the specimens.
After validation of the FE models using strain data, models were rotated and translated to the coordinate system defined in Bergmann (2014). Four loading cases were chosen – walking, descending stairs, sitting down and jogging. Element strains were written to file for post-processing. The bone in all FE models was divided into regions of equal thickness (10 mm) for comparison of strains.
RESULTS
Results are shown for two specimens at present. Strain-maps of the specimen cut section compare reasonably well with FE cutting-plane strains. The FE models however show some regions of high strain in certain locations which do not correspond with the experimental results (Figure 1). Plasticity predicted by the models at 10 BW is shown in Figure 2. Median bone strains for two loading cases are shown as a function of distance below the tibial tray in Figure 3. This figure shows that specimen 1 is less likely to be overloaded during jogging when compared with specimen 2. Both specimens remain below the 7300 με threshold for compressive yield.
DISCUSSION
Using functioning knee replacement tibial specimens, we study which factors influence bone overloading. Validation using DIC strain measurements is challenging due to the large plasticity regions predicted by the material model used here. The present results were obtained using plasticity relationships from Keyak (2005) for the proximal femur. To further improve on our results, plasticity-bone density relationships for the proximal tibia (Keyak 1996) will be included. Proximal tibial bone has been shown to be stiffer than femoral bone (Morgan 2003). Despite these limitations, FE models provide valuable information on the risk of overloading during daily living activities. The study will be expanded to include an analysis of implant geometry, bone quality and other loading cases.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
