Abstract
Introduction
Aseptic loosening of total knee replacements is a leading cause for revision. It is known that micromotion has an influence on the loosening of cemented implants though it is not yet well understood what the effect of repeated physiological loading has on the micromotion between implants and cement mantle. This study aims to investigate effect of physiological loading on the stability of tibial implants previously subjected to simulated intra-operative lipid/marrow infiltration.
Methods
Three commercially available fixed bearing tibial implant designs were investigated in this study: ATTUNE®, PFC SIGMA® CoCr, ATTUNE® S+. The implant designs were first prepared using a LMI implantation process. Following the method described by Maag et al tibial implants were cemented in a bone analog with 2 mL of bone marrow in the distal cavity and an additional reservoir of lipid adjacent to the posterior edge of the implant. The samples were subjected to intra- operative range of motion (ROM)/stability evaluation using an AMTI VIVO simulator, then a hyperextension activity until 15 minutes of cement cure time, and finally 3 additional ROM/stability evaluations were performed.
Implant specific physiological loading was determined using telemetric tibial implant data from Orthoload and applying it to a validated FE lower limb model developed by the University of Denver. Two high demand activities were selected for the loading section of this study: step down (SD) and deep knee bend (DKB). Using the above model, 6 degree of freedom kinetics and kinematics for each activity was determined for each posterior stabilized implant design.
Prior to loading, the 3-D motion between tibial implant and bone analog (micromotion) was measured using an ARAMIS Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system. Measurement was taken during the simulated DKB at 0.25Hz using an AMTI VIVO simulator while the DIC system captured images at a frame rate of 10Hz. The GOM software calculated the distance between reference point markers applied to the posterior implant and foam bone. A Matlab program calculated maximum micromotion within each DKB cycle and averaged that value across five cycles.
The implant specific loading parameters were then applied to the three tibial implant designs. Using an AMTI VIVO simulator each sample was subjected to 50,000 DKB and 120,000 SD cycles at 0.8Hz in series; equating to approximately 2 years of physiological activity. Following loading, micromotion was measured using the same method as above.
Results
Initial micomotion measurements during DKB activity for ATTUNE®, PFC SIGMA® CoCr, ATTUNE® S+ were 155µm, 246µm, and 104µm, respectively, and following physiological loading were 159µm, 264µm, and 112µm, respectively.
While there was statistical significance between the micromotion of implant designs (p<0.05), there was no significance between before and after loading.
Conclusion
This study shows there is no significant change in micromotion after approximately 2 years of physiological loading. However, there is a significant difference in micromotion between implant designs.
