Up to 40% of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revisions are performed for unexplained pain which may be caused by elevated proximal tibial bone strain. This study investigates the effect of tibial component metal backing and polyethylene thickness on bone strain in a cemented fixed-bearing medial UKA using a finite element model (FEM) validated experimentally by digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE). A total of ten composite tibias implanted with all-polyethylene (AP) and metal-backed (MB) tibial components were loaded to 2500 N. Cortical strain was measured using DIC and cancellous microdamage using AE. FEMs were created and validated and polyethylene thickness varied from 6 mm to 10 mm. The volume of cancellous bone exposed to < -3000 µε (pathological loading) and < -7000 µε (yield point) minimum principal (compressive) microstrain and > 3000 µε and > 7000 µε maximum principal (tensile) microstrain was computed.Objectives
Materials and Methods
As many as 25% to 40% of unicompartmental knee
replacement (UKR) revisions are performed for pain, a possible cause
of which is proximal tibial strain. The aim of this study was to
examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on cortical
and cancellous proximal tibial strain in a synthetic bone model.
Composite Sawbone tibiae were implanted with cemented UKR components
of different designs, either all-polyethylene or metal-backed. The tibiae
were subsequently loaded in 500 N increments to 2500 N, unloading
between increments. Cortical surface strain was measured using a
digital image correlation technique. Cancellous damage was measured
using acoustic emission, an engineering technique that detects sonic
waves (‘hits’) produced when damage occurs in material. Anteromedial cortical surface strain showed significant differences
between implants at 1500 N and 2500 N in the proximal 10 mm only
(p <
0.001), with relative strain shielding in metal-backed implants.
Acoustic emission showed significant differences in cancellous bone
damage between implants at all loads (p = 0.001). All-polyethylene implants
displayed 16.6 times the total number of cumulative acoustic emission
hits as controls. All-polyethylene implants also displayed more
hits than controls at all loads (p <
0.001), more than metal-backed
implants at loads ≥ 1500 N (p <
0.001), and greater acoustic
emission activity on unloading than controls (p = 0.01), reflecting
a lack of implant stiffness. All-polyethylene implants were associated
with a significant increase in damage at the microscopic level compared
with metal-backed implants, even at low loads. All-polyethylene
implants should be used with caution in patients who are likely
to impose large loads across their knee joint. Cite this article:
