MICROMOTION SECONDARY TO AXIAL, TORSIONAL, AND SHEAR LOADS IN 2 MODELS OF CEMENTLESS TIBIAL COMPONENTS

被引：35

作者：

KRAEMER, WJ ^{[1
]}

HARRINGTON, IJ ^{[1
]}

HEARN, TC ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] TORONTO E GEN & ORTHOPAED HOSP,TORONTO,ON M4C 3E7,CANADA

来源：

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY | 1995年 / 10卷 / 02期

关键词：

MICROMOTION; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; UNCEMENTED IMPLANTS; POROUS INGROWTH;

D O I：

10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80132-9

中图分类号：

R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学（修复外科学）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Tibial component loosening and lack of bone ingrowth remain serious problems in uncemented knee arthroplasty. Initial implant stability is the most important factor in achieving bone ingrowth. Eccentric axial loading causing liftoff has been identified as a potential problem, but the role of torsion and shear stability is unclear. This study assesses the micromotion in two uncemented components subjected to eccentric axial (lateral, medial, posterior, anterior), shear, and torsional loads. Four configurations were tested: Tricon M (pegs) (Smith and Nephew Richards, Memphis, TN), Genesis (stem only) (Smith and Nephew Richards), Genesis with screws, and Genesis with pegs. Nine pairs of cadaver tibias were implanted, and cyclic loads were applied. Micromotion was measured with two linear variable differential transformers. Micromotion values for each mode of loading were compared using a one-way analysis of variance. Genesis with screws had the least micromotion for all applied loads (14-33 mu m), whereas Genesis with stem only had the maximum value of micromotion (27-212 mu m). Genesis with pegs and Tricon had intermediate ranges of micromotion (32-121 and 107-140 mu m, respectively). It is concluded that peg fixation and stem fixation are inadequate and result in significant micromotion. Stem plus screws provides the most stable fixation and may be compatible with bone ingrowth.

引用

页码：227 / 235

页数：9

共 19 条

[1]

Volz, Nisbet, Lee, McMurtry, The mechanical stability of various noncemented tibial components, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 226, (1988)

[2]

Haddad, Cook, Thomas, Current concepts review: biological fixation of porous-coated implants, J Bone Joint Surg, 69 A, (1987)

[3]

Albrektsson, Ryd, Carlsson, Et al., The effect of a stem on the tibial component of knee arthroplasty, J Bone Joint Surg, 72 B, (1990)

[4]

Pilliar, Lee, Maniatopoulos, Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants, Clin Orthop, 208, (1986)

[5]

Maloney, Jasty, Burke, Et al., Biomechanical and histologic investigation of cemented total hip arthroplasties, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 249, (1989)

[6]

Lee, Volz, Sheridan, The role of fixation and bone quality on the mechanical stability of tibial knee components, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 273, (1991)

[7]

Morrison, The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking, J Biomech, 3, (1970)

[8]

Harrington, Knee joint forces in normal and pathological gait, Biomechanics in orthopaedics, (1992)

[9]

Goodfellow, O'Connor, The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design, J Bone Joint Surg, 60 B, (1978)

[10]

Seireg, Arvikar, The prediction of muscular load sharing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking, J Biomech, 8, (1975)

← 1 2 →