Abstract
Introduction
Survival rates of recent total ankle replacement (TAR) designs are lower than those of other arthroplasty prostheses. Loosening is the primary indication for TAR revisions [NJR, 2014], leading to a complex arthrodesis often involving both the talocrural and subtalar joints. Loosening is often attributed to early implant micromotion, which impedes osseointegration at the bone-implant interface, thereby hampering fixation [Soballe, 1993]. Micromotion of TAR prostheses has been assessed to evaluate the stability of the bone-implant interface by means of biomechanical testing [McInnes et al., 2014]. The aim of this study was to utilise computational modelling to complement the existing data by providing a detailed model of micromotion at the bone-implant interface for a range of popular implant designs, and investigate the effects of implant misalignment during surgery.
Methods
The geometry of the tibial and talar components of three TAR designs widely used in Europe (BOX®, Mobility® and SALTO®; NJR, 2014) was reverse-engineered, and models of the tibia and talus were generated from CT data. Virtual implantations were performed and verified by a surgeon specialised in ankle surgery. In addition to the aligned case, misalignment was simulated by positioning the talar components in 5° of dorsi- or plantar-flexion, and the tibial components in ± 5° and 10° varus/valgus and 5° and 10° dorsiflexion; tibial dorsiflexed misalignement was combined with 5° posterior gap to simulate this misalignment case. Finite element models were then developed to explore bone-implant micromotion and loads occurring in the bone in the implant vicinity.
Results
Micromotion and bone loads peaked at the end of the stance phase for both the tibial and talar components. The aligned BOX and SALTO demonstrated lower tibial micromotion (with under 30% of bone-implant interface area subjected to micromotion larger than 100µm, as opposed to > 55% for Mobility; Figure 1). Talar micromotion was considerably lower for all designs, and no aligned talar component demonstrated micromotion larger than 100µm. The aligned SALTO showed the largest talar micromotion (Figure 2). Dorsiflexed implantation of all tibial components increased micromotion and bone strains compared to the reference case; interestingly, the SALTO tibial component, which demonstrated the lowest micromotion for the aligned case, also demonstrated the smallest changes in micromotion due to malpositioning (Figure 3). The posterior gap between the tibia and implant further increased bone strains. Dorsi- or plantar-flexed implantation of all talar components considerably increased micromotion and bone loads compared to the reference case (Figure 2), often resulting in micromotion exceeding 100µm. The SALTO talar component demonstrated the smallest changes in micromotion due to malpositioning.
Discussion
The aligned Mobility had greater tibial micromotion than the SALTO and BOX, which agrees with higher revision rates reported in registry data (e.g. NZJR, 2014). The increased micromotion associated with dorsi- or plantar-flexion misalignment highlights the importance of aligning the implant correctly, and implies that SALTO can be more “forgiving” for malpositioning than the other TAR designs. Implant design and alignment are therefore important factors that affect the implant fixation and performance of the reconstructed ankle.
