Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to assess the biomechanical stability of the a total ankle arthroplasty system using longitudinal migration (LM) and inducible displacement (ID) measures. This study is the first study of its kind to assess total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) implant micromotion using model-based radiostereometric analysis (MBRSA).
Method
Twenty patients underwent TAA that implanted the Mobility(TM) (DePuy, Warsaw IN). The mean (SD) age was 60.4 (12.5) and BMI was 29.1 (2.8) kg/m2. One surgeon performed all surgeries. All patients included in this study had given informed consent. Capital Health Research Ethics Board had approved this study.
Uniplanar medial-lateral RSA X-ray exams were taken postop (double exam), at six wk, three mth, six mth, one yr and two yr followup times using a supine, unloaded position. Standing medial-lateral exams were taken at three mth, six mth, one yr and two yr followup intervals.
LM and ID micromotions were assessed using Model-based RSA 3.2 software (Medis specials, Leiden, The Netherlands). Implant micromotions (x, y, z, Rx, Ry, Rz, MTPM) were determined and assessed for each subject using model-based pose estimation, and the implant-based coordinate system. The Elementary Geometric Shapes module from the Model-based RSA 3.2 software was used to assess the micromotion of the tibial component spherical tip due to implant symmetry.
Results
The median (range) maximum total point motion (MTPM) for the implants at 2 year followup were 1.23 mm (0.39–1.95 mm) for the talar implant and 0.96 mm (0.17–2.28 mm) for the spherical tip of the tibia implant. Generally for each subject and implant component, the slopes of the migration curves decreased over time. The talar and tibial implants mean LM showed initial subsidence in the y-direction (migration into the bone) followed by stabilization patterns at one year followup.
The median (range) of two year MTPM ID for the talar component was 0.39 (0.27–1.06) mm. At the one year and two year followup times the ID were almost all below the detection limit of 0.85 mm. The highest measured displacement for any one talar component at either of these times was 1.06 mm. Hence, the implant was displaced at least 0.21 mm under loading.
The median (range) of one year and two year MTPM ID for the tibial component spherical tip was 0.08 (0.03–0.19) mm. The tibial component spherical tip demonstrates no ID in terms of MTPM greater than the 0.22 mm detection limit.
Conclusion
The implant subsides directly into the bone in the line of primary loading during standing or walking. For most of the patients the two year LM for the Mobility(TM) demonstrates a typical subsidence-stabilization behaviour seen in many RSA studies of orthopaedic implants. Based on the results of this study the Mobility(TM) components show no measurable ID. This is the first study of its kind internationally for total ankle arthroplasty and offers novel insight into the need for prosthetic design change.
