Methods

Alignment specific physiological loading was determined using telemetric tibial implant data from Orthoload [2] and applying it to a validated finite element lower limb model developed by the University of Denver [3]. Two high demand activities were selected for the loading section of this study: step down (SD) and deep knee bend (DKB). Using the lower limb model, hip and ankle external boundary conditions were applied to the ATTUNE^® knee system for both MA and AA techniques. The 6 degree of freedom kinetics and kinematics for each activity were then extracted from the model for each alignment type. Mechanical alignment (MA) was considered to be neutral alignment (0° Hip Knee Ankle Angle (HKA), 0° Joint Line (JL)) and AA was chosen to be 3° varus HKA, 5° JL. It is important not to exceed the limits of safety when using AA as such it is noted that DePuy Synthes recommends staying within 3º varus HKA and 3º JL. The use of 5º JL was used in this study to account for surgical variation [Depuy-Synthes surgical technique DSUS/JRC/0617/2179].

Following a similar method described by Maag et al [1] ATTUNE tibial implants were cemented into a bone analog with 2 mL of bone marrow in the distal cavity and an additional reservoir of lipid adjacent to the posterior edge of the implant. Tibial implant constructs were then subjected to intra-operative ROM/stability evaluation, followed by a hyperextension activity until 15 minutes of cement curing time, and finally 3 additional ROM/stability evaluations were performed using an AMTI VIVO simulator. The alignment specific loading parameters were then applied to the tibial implants using an AMTI VIVO simulator. Each sample was subjected to 50,000 DKB cycles and 120,000 SD cycles at 0.8 Hz in series; approximating 2 years of physiological activity. After physiological loading the samples were tested for fixation failure load by axial pull off.

Methods

Three commercially available fixed bearing tibial implant designs were investigated in this study: ATTUNE^®, PFC SIGMA^® CoCr, ATTUNE^® S+. The implant designs were first prepared using a LMI implantation process. Following the method described by Maag et al tibial implants were cemented in a bone analog with 2 mL of bone marrow in the distal cavity and an additional reservoir of lipid adjacent to the posterior edge of the implant. The samples were subjected to intra- operative range of motion (ROM)/stability evaluation using an AMTI VIVO simulator, then a hyperextension activity until 15 minutes of cement cure time, and finally 3 additional ROM/stability evaluations were performed.

Implant specific physiological loading was determined using telemetric tibial implant data from Orthoload and applying it to a validated FE lower limb model developed by the University of Denver. Two high demand activities were selected for the loading section of this study: step down (SD) and deep knee bend (DKB). Using the above model, 6 degree of freedom kinetics and kinematics for each activity was determined for each posterior stabilized implant design.

Prior to loading, the 3-D motion between tibial implant and bone analog (micromotion) was measured using an ARAMIS Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system. Measurement was taken during the simulated DKB at 0.25Hz using an AMTI VIVO simulator while the DIC system captured images at a frame rate of 10Hz. The GOM software calculated the distance between reference point markers applied to the posterior implant and foam bone. A Matlab program calculated maximum micromotion within each DKB cycle and averaged that value across five cycles.

The implant specific loading parameters were then applied to the three tibial implant designs. Using an AMTI VIVO simulator each sample was subjected to 50,000 DKB and 120,000 SD cycles at 0.8Hz in series; equating to approximately 2 years of physiological activity. Following loading, micromotion was measured using the same method as above.