Abstract
Introduction
Augmented glenoid implants provide a new avenue to correct glenoid bone loss and can possibly reconcile current prosthetic failures and improve long-term performance. Biomechanical implant studies have suggested benefits from augmented glenoid components but limited evidence exists on optimal design of these augmented glenoid components. The aim of this study was to use integrated kinematic finite element analysis (FEA) model to evaluate the optimal augmented glenoid design based on biomechanical performance in extreme conditions for failure.
Materials and Methods
Computer aided design software (CAD) models of two different commercially available augmented glenoid designs - wedge (Equinox®, Exactech, Inc.) and step (Steptech®, Depuy Synthes) were created per precise manufacturer's dimensions and sizes of the implants. Using FE modeling, these implants were virtually implanted to correct 20° of glenoid retroversion. Two glenohumeral radial mismatches (RM) (3.5/4mm and 10 mm) were evaluated for joint stability and implant fixation to simulate high risk conditions for failure. The following variables were recorded: glenohumeral force ratio, relative micromotion (distraction, translation and compression), and stress on the implant and at the cement mantle interface.
Results
The wedged and step designs showed similar force ratio measurements with both RM [(wedge (3.5 mm: 0.69; 10 mm: 0.7) and step (4 mm: 0.72; 10 mm: 0.75)]. Surrogate for micromotion was a combination of distraction, translation and compression. As radial mismatch increased, both implants showed less distraction [wedge design (3.5 mm: 0.042 mm; 10mm: 0.030 mm); step design (4 mm: 0.04 mm; 10 mm: 0.027 mm)]. As radial mismatch increased, both implants showed more translation [wedge design (3.5 mm: 0.058 mm; 10mm: 0.062 mm); step design (4 mm: 0.023 mm; 10 mm: 0.063 mm)]. During compression measurements, the different designs did not follow the same pattern as their conformity setting changed. The wedge one decreased as radial mismatch increased, (at 3.5mm: 0.18 mm; at 10 mm: 0.10 mm) and the step design increased as its radial mismatch increased (at 3.5 mm: 0.19 mm; at 10 mm: 0.25 mm). Quantitatively, the step design showed higher risk of implant instability and loosening. As radial mismatch increased, the stress level on the backside of the implant increased as opposed to the stress levels on the cement mantle which decreased for both designs as the radial mismatch increased [wedged (3.5 mm: 2.9 MPa; 10mm: 2.6 MPa); step (3.5 mm: 4.4 MPa; 10 mm: 4.1 MPa)]. In this situation, the risk of loosening was higher for the step designwhich exceeded the endurance limit of the cement material (4 MPa).
Discussion
Implant loosening and wear are associated with increased micromotion and high stress levels. Based on our FEA model, overall increased radial mismatch has an advantage of providing higher glenohumeral stability but not without tradeoffs, such as higher implant and cement mantle stress levels, and micromotion increasing the risk of implant loosening, failure or fracture over time, leading to poorer clinical outcomes and higher revision rates, especially when considering a step augmented glenoid design.
