Aims

This study aimed to investigate the optimal sagittal positioning of the uncemented femoral component in total knee arthroplasty to minimize the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture.

Aims. To draw a comparison of the pullout strengths of buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread bone screws. Methods. Buttress thread, barb thread, and reverse buttress thread bone screws were inserted into synthetic cancellous bone blocks. Five screw-block constructs per group were tested to failure in an axial pullout test. The pullout strengths were calculated and compared. A finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to explore the underlying failure mechanisms. FEA models of the three different screw-bone constructs were developed. A pullout force of 250 N was applied to the screw head with a fixed bone model. The compressive and tensile strain contours of the midsagittal plane of the three bone models were plotted and compared. Results. The barb thread demonstrated the lowest pullout strength (mean 176.16 N (SD 3.10)) among the three thread types. It formed a considerably larger region with high tensile strains and a slightly smaller region with high compressive strains within the surrounding bone structure. The reverse buttress thread demonstrated the highest pullout strength (mean 254.69 N (SD 4.15)) among the three types of thread. It formed a considerably larger region with high compressive strains and a slightly smaller region with high tensile strains within the surrounding bone structure. Conclusion. Bone screws with a reverse buttress thread design will significantly increase the pullout strength. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(2):105–112

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCA) have been associated with improved functional outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in suitable patients, although the reason is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to measure how the different arthroplasties affect knee extensor function.

Aims. Restoration of proximal medial femoral support is the keystone in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. None of the available implants are effective in constructing the medial femoral support. Medial sustainable nail (MSN-II) is a novel cephalomedullary nail designed for this. In this study, biomechanical difference between MSN-II and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA-II) was compared to determine whether or not MSN-II can effectively reconstruct the medial femoral support. Methods. A total of 36 synthetic femur models with simulated intertrochanteric fractures without medial support (AO/OTA 31-A2.3) were assigned to two groups with 18 specimens each for stabilization with MSN-II or PFNA-II. Each group was further divided into three subgroups of six specimens according to different experimental conditions respectively as follows: axial loading test; static torsional test; and cyclic loading test. Results. The mean axial stiffness, vertical displacement, and maximum failure load of MSN-II were 258.47 N/mm (SD 42.27), 2.99 mm (SD 0.56), and 4,886 N (SD 525.31), respectively, while those of PFNA-II were 170.28 N/mm (SD 64.63), 4.86 mm (SD 1.66), and 3,870.87 N (SD 552.21), respectively. The mean torsional stiffness and failure torque of MSN-II were 1.72 N m/° (SD 0.61) and 16.54 N m (SD 7.06), respectively, while those of PFNA-II were 0.61 N m/° (SD 0.39) and 6.6 N m (SD 6.65), respectively. The displacement of MSN-II in each cycle point was less than that of PFNA-II in cyclic loading test. Significantly higher stiffness and less displacement were detected in the MSN-II group (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The biomechanical performance of MSN-II was better than that of PFNA-II, suggesting that MSN-II may provide more effective mechanical support in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):840–847

Objectives

Opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is an established surgical procedure for the treatment of early-stage knee arthritis. Other than infection, the majority of complications are related to mechanical factors – in particular, stimulation of healing at the osteotomy site. This study used finite element (FE) analysis to investigate the effect of plate design and bridging span on interfragmentary movement (IFM) and the influence of fracture healing on plate stress and potential failure.

Objectives. Secondary fracture healing is strongly influenced by the stiffness of the bone-fixator system. Biomechanical tests are extensively used to investigate stiffness and strength of fixation devices. The stiffness values reported in the literature for locked plating, however, vary by three orders of magnitude. The aim of this study was to examine the influence that the method of restraint and load application has on the stiffness produced, the strain distribution within the bone, and the stresses in the implant for locking plate constructs. Methods. Synthetic composite bones were used to evaluate experimentally the influence of four different methods of loading and restraining specimens, all used in recent previous studies. Two plate types and three screw arrangements were also evaluated for each loading scenario. Computational models were also developed and validated using the experimental tests. Results. The method of loading was found to affect the gap stiffness strongly (by up to six times) but also the magnitude of the plate stress and the location and magnitude of strains at the bone-screw interface. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that the method of loading is responsible for much of the difference in reported stiffness values in the literature. It also shows that previous contradictory findings, such as the influence of working length and very large differences in failure loads, can be readily explained by the choice of loading condition. Cite this article: A. MacLeod, A. H. R. W. Simpson, P. Pankaj. Experimental and numerical investigation into the influence of loading conditions in biomechanical testing of locking plate fracture fixation devices. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:111–120. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0074.R2