INTRODUCTION

Modular knee implants are used to manage large bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. These implants are confronted with varying fixation characteristics, changes in load transfer or stiffen the bone. In spite of their current clinical use, the influence of modularity on the biomechanical implant-bone behavior (e.g. implant fixation, flexibility, etc.) still is inadequately investigated.

Aim of this study is to analyze, if the modularity of a tibial implant could change the biomechanical implant fixation behavior and the implant-bone flexibility.

INTRODUCTION:

Good survival rates of cementless hip stems serve as motivation for further development, just like modular implant systems or short stems. New aims are worth striving for, e.g. soft tissue or bone sparing options with similar survival rates in case of short stems. Even minimal design modifications might result in complications, e.g. missing osseointegration, loosening of the implant or painful stem, as shown in the past.

One of these developments is the Biomet – GTS™ stem [Fig. 1], a hybrid between conventional cementless straight stem and potentially sparing short stem.

Aim of this biomechanical study was to analyze, if the biomechanical behavior of the stem is comparable to a clinically proofed design with respect to the stem fixation in the bone and to the mechanical behavior of the stem itself. That's why the primary stability of the GTS™ stem has been determined and subsequently was compared to the Zimmer – CLS® stem.

Introduction:

Extensive bone defects of the proximal femur e.g. due to aseptic loosening might require the implantation of megaprostheses. In the literature high loosening rates of such megaprostheses have been reported. However, different fixation methods have been developed to achieve adequate implant stability, which is reflected by differing design characteristics of the commonly used implants. Yet, a biomechanical comparison of these designs has not been reported.

The aim of our study was to analyse potential differences in the biomechanical behaviour of three megaprostheses with different designs by measuring the primary rotational stability in vitro.

Introduction

Concerning biomechanical research, human specimens are preferred to achieve conditions that are close to the clinical situation. On the other hand, synthetic femurs are used for biomechanical testing instead of fresh-frozen human femurs, to create standardized and comparable conditions. A new generation of synthetic femurs is currently available aiming to substitute the validated traditional one. Structural femoral properties of the new generation have already been validated, yet a biomechanical validation is missing.

The aim of our study was to analyse potential differences in the biomechanical behaviour of two different synthetic femoral designs by measuring the primary rotational stability of a cementless femoral hip stem.

Background

Polyethylene (PE) as a bearing material for total joint replacements (TJR) represents the golden standard for the past forty years. However, over the past decade it becomes apparent that PE wear and the biological response to wear products are the limiting factor for the longevity of TJRs. For this reason research has focused onto PE wear particle analysis. A particle analysis highly depends on the methodological work and results often show discrepancies between different research groups. From there, our hypothesis was, that an often unattended influencing factor is the optical magnification which has been used for particle analyses.