FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF BUFFERED IMPLANT FIXATION IN COMPARISON WITH CURRENT IMPLANT FIXATIONS

Abstract

The cemented and cementless implant fixations are popular in orthopaedic arthroplasty. However, these implant fixations have some problems such as cement failure, wear debris, stress shielding, revision and so on. To overcome these problems, we are developing a new concept of buffered implant fixation which uses a bone-friendly buffer between the implant and the bone. In this study, we performed a finite element analysis to evaluate the buffered implant fixation in comparison with cemented and cementless implant fixations in mechanical aspects. In addition, we investigated the effect of buffer taper angle to the stress distribution in the buffered implant fixation.

Three-dimensional FEA of the cemented, cementless and buffered fixation were performed using the ABAQUS program. In these FEA, the ‘standardized femur’, which is the composite femur model supplied by Pacific Research Lab., was used as the bone model and the CPT stem and the Versys Fibermetal Midcoat stem were modeled for the cemented fixation and the cementless fixation, respectively. These three-dimensional models were meshed using the tetrahedral elements with 4 nodes (C3D4) and the additional contact definitions. The buffered implant fixation is similar with the polished cemented fixation except the material between the implant and the bone. The polyetheretherketone (PEEK) was selected as the buffer material. Also, several taper angles of buffer were simulated to change the stress distributions in the buffered fixation. The external load three times of mean body weight (74.3 kg) was cyclically loaded at the femoral head with the angle of 20° in adduction and 6° in flexion while the distal end of femur was fixed.

In the buffered implant fixation, the taper-locked effects were observed. The buffered fixation had greater cyclic compression for the bone compared to the cemented fixation. Also, the failure probability of the buffer in the buffered fixation was less than that of the cement in the cemented fixation. The risk factors in the buffer were 0.148 for the tension and 0.176 for the compression while, the risk factors of cement in the polished cemented implant fixation were over than 1. Moreover, the buffered fixation had widely distributed compression compared to the cementless fixation and the stress distribution could be modified easily to change the taper angle of buffer. The FEA results showed that the buffered implant fixation would provide an appropriate mechanical environment.