Abstract
A durable biological fixation between implant and bone depends largely on the micro-motions [Pilliar et al., 1986]. Finite element analysis (FEA) is a numerical tool to calculate micro-motions during physiological loading. However, micromotions can be simulated and calculated in various ways. Generally, only a single peak force of an activity is applied, but it is also possible to apply discretized loads occurring during a continuous activity, offering the opportunity to analyze incremental micro-motions as well. Moreover, micro-motions are affected by the initial press-fit. We therefore aimed to evaluate the effect of different loading conditions and calculation methods on the micro-motions of an uncemented femoral knee component, while varying the interference-fit.
We created an FE model of a distal femur based on calibrated CT-scans. A Sigma® Cruciate-Retaining Porocoat® (DePuy Synthes, Leeds, UK) was placed following the surgical instructions. A range of interference-fits (0–100 µm) was applied, while other contact parameters were kept unchanged. Micro-motions were calculated by tracking the projection of implant nodes onto the bone surface. We defined three different micro-motions measures: micro-motions between consecutive increments of a full loading cycle (incremental), micro-motions for each increment relative to the initial position (reference), and the largest distance between projected displacements, occurring during a discretized full cycle (resulting) (Fig. 1A). Four consecutive cycles of normal gait and squat movements were applied, in different configurations. In the first configuration, incremental tibiofemoral and patellofemoral contact forces were applied, which were derived from Orthoload database using inverse dynamics [Fitzpatrick et al., 2012]. Secondly, we applied the same loads without the patellofemoral force, which is often used in experimental set-ups. Finally, only the peak tibiofemoral force was applied, as a single loading instance. We calculated the average of micro-motions of all nodes per increment to compare different calculation techniques. The percentage of area with resulting micro-motions less than 5 µm was also calculated.
The percentage of surface area was increased non-linearly when the interference fit changed from 0 to 100 µm particularly for squat movement. Tracking nodes over multiple cycles showed implant migration with interference-fits lower than 30µm (Fig. 1A). Loading configurations without the patellofemoral force, and with only the peak tibiofemoral force slightly overestimated and underestimated the resulting micro-motions of squat movement, respectively; although, the effect was less obvious for the gait simulation when no patella force was applied. Both incremental and reference micro-motions underestimated the resulting micro-motions (Fig. 1B). Interestingly, the reference micro-motions followed the pattern of the tibiofemoral contact force (Fig. 1B).
The calculation technique has a substantial effect on the micro-motions, which means there is a room for interpretation of micro-motions analyses. This furthermore stresses the importance of validation of the predicted micro-motions against experimental set-ups. In addition, the minor effect of loading configurations indicates that a simplified loading condition using only the peak tibiofemoral force is suitable for experimental studies. From a clinical perspective, the migration pattern of femoral components implanted with a low interference fit stresses the role of an adequate surgical technique, to obtain a good initial stability.
