When performing revision total hip arthroplasty using diaphyseal-engaging titanium tapered stems (TTS), the recommended 3 to 4 cm of stem-cortical diaphyseal contact may not be available. In challenging cases such as these with only 2 cm of contact, can sufficient axial stability be achieved and what is the benefit of a prophylactic cable? This study sought to determine, first, whether a prophylactic cable allows for sufficient axial stability when the contact length is 2 cm, and second, if differing TTS taper angles (2° vs 3.5°) impact these results. A biomechanical matched-pair cadaveric study was designed using six matched pairs of human fresh cadaveric femora prepared so that 2 cm of diaphyseal bone engaged with 2° (right femora) or 3.5° (left femora) TTS. Before impaction, three matched pairs received a single 100 lb-tensioned prophylactic beaded cable; the remaining three matched pairs received no cable adjuncts. Specimens underwent stepwise axial loading to 2600 N or until failure, defined as stem subsidence > 5 mm.Aims
Methods
Commonly performed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is not designed for the lateral compartment. Additionally, the anatomical medial and lateral tibial plateaus have asymmetrical geometries, with a slightly dished medial plateau and a convex lateral plateau. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the native knee kinematics with respect to the tibial insert design corresponding to the lateral femoral component. Subject-specific finite element models were developed with tibiofemoral (TF) and patellofemoral joints for one female and four male subjects. Three different TF conformity designs were applied. Flat, convex, and conforming tibial insert designs were applied to the identical femoral component. A deep knee bend was considered as the loading condition, and the kinematic preservation in the native knee was investigated.Aims
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, polyethylene wear can significantly reduce the lifespan of UKA. Different bearing designs and materials for UKA have been developed to change the rate of polyethylene wear. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effect of insert conformity and material on the predicted wear in mobile-bearing UKA using a previously developed computational wear method. Two different designs were tested with the same femoral component under identical kinematic input: anatomy mimetic design (AMD) and conforming design inserts with different conformity levels. The insert materials were standard or crosslinked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). We evaluated the contact pressure, contact area, wear rate, wear depth, and volumetric wear under gait cycle loading conditions.Objectives
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for patients who require treatment of single-compartment osteoarthritis, especially for young patients. To satisfy this requirement, new patient-specific prosthetic designs have been introduced. The patient-specific UKA is designed on the basis of data from preoperative medical images. In general, knee implant design with increased conformity has been developed to provide lower contact stress and reduced wear on the tibial insert compared with flat knee designs. The different tibiofemoral conformity may provide designers the opportunity to address both wear and kinematic design goals simultaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate wear prediction with respect to tibiofemoral conformity design in patient-specific UKA under gait loading conditions by using a previously validated computational wear method. Three designs with different conformities were developed with the same femoral component: a flat design normally used in fixed-bearing UKA, a tibia plateau anatomy mimetic (AM) design, and an increased conforming design. We investigated the kinematics, contact stress, contact area, wear rate, and volumetric wear of the three different tibial insert designs.Objectives
Methods
