27.12.2012 Views

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

ARUP; ISBN: 978-0-9562121-5-3 - CMBBE 2012 - Cardiff University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

EVALUATION OF FEMORAL COMPONENT MICROMOTION<br />

AFTER TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: AN EXPERIMENTAL<br />

STUDY<br />

1. ABSTRACT<br />

N. Conlisk 1 , P. Pankaj 2 and C.R. Howie 3<br />

Orthopaedic surgeons use stems in revision knee surgery to obtain stability when<br />

damaged metaphyseal bone is encountered, however no consensus exists regarding stem<br />

size or method of fixation. This in-vitro study investigated the influence of different<br />

stem lengths and types of fixation on the pattern and level of micromotion at a range of<br />

flexion angles. Micromotions were found to increase with flexion angle, indicating that<br />

laboratory testing in extension is insufficient. Stemmed implants reduced micromotions<br />

in comparison to stemless for uncemented cases. Cemented implant micromotions were<br />

found to reduce to 1/3 of their equivalent uncemented levels. This study suggests that<br />

the use of stems in revision knee surgery may not be necessary for cemented implants<br />

when the metaphyseal bone is intact.<br />

2. INTRODUCTION<br />

Revision knee arthroplasty is predicted to increase worldwide [1]. There is a general<br />

consensus among orthopaedic surgeons that stemmed tibial and femoral components are<br />

required to obtain initial mechanical stability when there is deficient metaphyseal bone.<br />

However little to no consensus exists regarding the appropriate selection of stem size,<br />

length or method of fixation. Surgeons choose between cemented fixation, cementless<br />

fixation and “hybrid” fixation of a cementless stem coupled with a cemented<br />

metaphyseal component. All of these methods have theoretical advantages and<br />

disadvantages. All have their proponents in the orthopaedic community. A recent<br />

review of the current literature of long-term clinical outcomes did not demonstrate<br />

sufficient evidence to recommend one method over the other [2].<br />

Extensive literature exists on biomechanical testing of the tibia, in contrast relatively<br />

few studies have been conducted on the distal femur [3-7]. Studies which have focused<br />

on the distal femur have often been limited to loading in extension [3, 7]. Work carried<br />

out by Wackerhagen et al. [4] investigated femoral component micromotion through the<br />

use of a custom built dynamic knee rig capable of a range of flexion angles from 0°-90°.<br />

Later work by Cristofolini et al. [5,6] employed a modified knee wear simulator to<br />

investigate the long term loosening behaviour of both cobalt chromium and ceramic<br />

1<br />

PhD student, Edinburgh Orthopaedic Engineering Centre, RM 3.13, A.G.B Building, The Kings<br />

Buildings, The <strong>University</strong> of Edinburgh, EH9 3JL, Edinburgh, UK<br />

2<br />

Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, The Kings Buildings, The <strong>University</strong> of Edinburgh, EH9 3JL,<br />

Edinburgh, UK<br />

3<br />

Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Edinburgh Orthopaedic Engineering Centre, The <strong>University</strong> of<br />

Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, Edinburgh, UK

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!