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

Knee

MECHANICAL FIXATION OF UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS

British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK)



Abstract

Laboratory experiments and computational models were used to predict bone-implant micromotion and bone strains induced by the cemented and cementless Biomet Oxford medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) tibial implants.

Methods

Ten fresh frozen cadaveric knees were implanted with cementless medial mobile UKRs, the tibias were separated and all the soft tissues were resected. Five strain gauge rosettes were attached to each tibia. Four Linear Transducers were used to measure the superior-inferior and transverse bone-implant micromotions. The cementless UKRs were assessed with 10 cycles of 1kN compressive load at 4 different bearing positions. The bone-constructs were re-assessed following cementation of the equivalent UKR. The cemented bone-implant constructs were also assessed for strain and micromotion under 10000 cycles of 10mm anterior-posterior bearing movement at 2Hz and 1kN load.

The cadaveric specimens were scanned using Computed Tomography, and 3D computer models were developed using Finite Element method to predict strain and micromotion under various daily loads.

Results and Discussion

Results verify computer model predictions and show bone strain pattern differences, with cemented implants distributing the loads more evenly through the bone than cementless implants. Although cementless implants showed micromotions which were greater than computer predictions, the micromotions were as expected significantly greater than those of cemented implants.

The computer models reveal that bone strains approach 70% of their failure limit at the posterior and anterior corners adjoining the sagittal and transverse cuts (less pronounced in cemented implants). The base of the keel also develops high strains which can approach failure depending on the amount the implant press-fit. The contributions of the anterior cruciate and patellar tendon forces exacerbate the strains in these regions. This may explain why fractures emanate from the base of the keel and the sagittal cut.