Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model
- PMID: 28077394
- PMCID: PMC5301904
- DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1
Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model
Abstract
Objectives: Up to 40% of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revisions are performed for unexplained pain which may be caused by elevated proximal tibial bone strain. This study investigates the effect of tibial component metal backing and polyethylene thickness on bone strain in a cemented fixed-bearing medial UKA using a finite element model (FEM) validated experimentally by digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE).
Materials and methods: A total of ten composite tibias implanted with all-polyethylene (AP) and metal-backed (MB) tibial components were loaded to 2500 N. Cortical strain was measured using DIC and cancellous microdamage using AE. FEMs were created and validated and polyethylene thickness varied from 6 mm to 10 mm. The volume of cancellous bone exposed to < -3000 µε (pathological loading) and < -7000 µε (yield point) minimum principal (compressive) microstrain and > 3000 µε and > 7000 µε maximum principal (tensile) microstrain was computed.
Results: Experimental AE data and the FEM volume of cancellous bone with compressive strain < -3000 µε correlated strongly: R = 0.947, R2 = 0.847, percentage error 12.5% (p < 0.001). DIC and FEM data correlated: R = 0.838, R2 = 0.702, percentage error 4.5% (p < 0.001). FEM strain patterns included MB lateral edge concentrations; AP concentrations at keel, peg and at the region of load application. Cancellous strains were higher in AP implants at all loads: 2.2- (10 mm) to 3.2-times (6 mm) the volume of cancellous bone compressively strained < -7000 µε.
Conclusion: AP tibial components display greater volumes of pathologically overstrained cancellous bone than MB implants of the same geometry. Increasing AP thickness does not overcome these pathological forces and comes at the cost of greater bone resection.Cite this article: C. E. H. Scott, M. J. Eaton, R. W. Nutton, F. A. Wade, S. L. Evans, P. Pankaj. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:22-30. DOI:10.1302/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1.
Keywords: Bone strain; Finite element analysis; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
© 2017 Scott et al.
Conflict of interest statement
ICMJE Conflicts of Intrest: M. J. Eaton declares that their institution has received funding from the Welcome Trust ISSF for a project partnered with Zimmer Biomet unrelated to this work.
Figures








References
-
- No authors listed. NJR of England and Wales: 12th Annual Report. http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/3/PDFdownloads/NJR%2012th%20Annual%... (date last accessed 07 December 2016).
-
- No authors listed. Norwegian Annual Report of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/Rapporter/Report2016_english.pdf (date last accessed 07 December 2016).
-
- No authors listed. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association: the New Zealand Joint Registry seventeen year report. http://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NZJR%2017%20year%20Report.pdf (date last accessed 07 December 2016).
-
- Simpson DJ, Price AJ, Gulati A, Murray DW, Gill HS. Elevated proximal tibial strains following unicompartmental knee replacement–a possible cause of pain. Med Eng Phys 2009;31:752-757. - PubMed
-
- Scott CE, Wade FA, Bhattacharya R, et al. Changes in bone density in metal-backed and all-polyethylene medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016;31:702-709. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous