Malpositioning of the tibial component is a common error in TKR. In theory, placement of the tibial tray could be improved by optimization of its design to more closely match anatomic features of the proximal tibia with the motion axis of the knee joint. However, the inherent variability of tibial anatomy and the size increments required for a non-custom implant system may lead to minimal benefit, despite the increased cost and size of inventory. This study was undertaken to test the hypotheses:
That correct placement of the tibial component is influenced by the design of the implant. The operative experience of the surgeon influences the likelihood of correct placement of contemporary designs of tibial trays. CAD models were generated of all sizes of 7 widely used designs of tibial trays, including symmetric (4) and asymmetric (3) designs. Solid models of 10 tibias were selected from a large anatomic collection and verified to ensure that they encompassed the anatomic range of shapes and sizes of Caucasian tibias. Each computer model was resected perpendicular to the canal axis with a posterior slope of 5 degrees at a depth of 5 mm distal to the medial plateau. Fifteen joint surgeons and fourteen experienced trainees individually determined the ideal size and placement of each tray on each resected tibia, corresponding to a total of 2030 implantations. For each implantation we calculated: (i) the rotational alignment of the tray; (ii) its coverage of the resected bony surface, and (iii) the extent of any overhang of the tray beyond the cortical boundary. Differences in the parameters defining the implantations of the surgeons and trainees were evaluated statistically.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Edge loading is a common wear mechanism in Metal-on-Metal (MOM) hip resurfacing and is associated with higher wear rates and the incidence of pseudotumour. The purpose of this study was to develop a method to investigate the contributions of patient, surgical and implant design variables on the risk of edge loading. We created a mathematical model to calculate the distance from the head-cup contact patch to the rim of the cup and used this to investigate the effect of component position, specific design features and patient activity on the risk of edge loading. We then used this method to calculate the contact patch to rim distance (CPRD) for 160 patients having undergone revision of their MOM hip resurfacing in order to identify any possible associations.Introduction
Method
