Abstract
Introduction
Varus alignment in total knee replacement (TKR) results in a larger portion of the joint load carried by the medial compartment.[1] Increased burden on the medial compartment could negatively impact the implant fixation, especially for cementless TKR that requires bone ingrowth. Our aim was to quantify the effect varus alignment on the bone-implant interaction of cementless tibial baseplates. To this end, we evaluated the bone-implant micromotion and the amount of bone at risk of failure.[2,3]
Methods
Finite element models (Fig.1) were developed from pre-operative CT scans of the tibiae of 11 female patients with osteoarthritis (age: 58–77 years). We sought to compare two loading conditions from Smith et al.;[1] these corresponded to a mechanically aligned knee and a knee with 4° of varus. Consequently, we virtually implanted each model with a two-peg cementless baseplate following two tibial alignment strategies: mechanical alignment (i.e., perpendicular to the tibial mechanical axis) and 2° tibial varus alignment (the femoral resection accounts for additional 2° varus). The baseplate was modeled as solid titanium (E=114.3 GPa; v=0.33). The pegs and a 1.2 mm layer on the bone-contact surface were modeled as 3D-printed porous titanium (E=1.1 GPa; v=0.3). Bone material properties were non-homogeneous, determined from the CT scans using relationships specific to the proximal tibia.[2,4] The bone-implant interface was modelled as frictional with friction coefficients for solid and porous titanium of 0.6 and 1.1, respectively. The tibia was fixed 77 mm distal to the resection. For mechanical alignment, instrumented TKR loads previously measured in vivo[5] were applied to the top of the baseplate throughout level gait in 2% intervals (Fig.1a). For varus alignment, the varus/valgus moment was modified to match the ratio of medial-lateral force distribution from Smith et al.[1] (Fig.1b).
Results
For both alignments and all bones, the largest micromotion and amount of bone at risk of failure occurred during mid stance, at 16% of gait (Figs.2,3). Peak micromotion, located at the antero-lateral edge of the baseplate, was 153±32 µm and 273±48 µm for mechanical and varus alignment, respectively. The area of the baseplate with micromotion above 40 µm (the threshold for bone ingrowth[3]) was 28±5% and 41±4% for mechanical and varus alignment, respectively. The amount of bone at risk of failure at the bone-implant interface was 0.5±0.3% and 0.8±0.3% for the mechanical and varus alignment, respectively.
Discussion
The peak micromotion and the baseplate area with micromotion above 40 µm increased with varus alignment compared to mechanical alignment. Furthermore, the amount of bone at risk of failure, although small for both alignments, was greater for varus alignment. These results suggest that varus alignment, consisting of a combination of femoral and tibial alignment, may negatively impact bone ingrowth and increase the risk of bone failure for cementless tibial baseplates of this TKR design.
