Finite element analysis of tibial slope in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2015.44.019

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: At present, there still remain controversies concerning the choice of tibial slope in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and the related biomechanical studies are rare.
OBJECTIVE: To find the rational tibial slope in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through the results of finite element analysis.
METHODS: A finite element model of normal knee was established and validated using the techniques of three-dimensional reconstruction and finite element pre-processing. Then the finite element models of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with different tibial slopes were established based on the normal knee model. The finite element analyses were conducted after the boundary conditions and loads were unified.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The finite element models of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with different tibial slopes were established successfully. The results of the finite element analyses indicated that the posteromedial tibial cortical and cancellous bone stress increased gradually as the posterior slope increasing, as well as the load distribution and the cartilage contact pressures of lateral compartment. The anteromedial tibial cortical stress increased significantly with the anterior slope. A posterior tibial slope of 0°-7° can be recommended when implanting a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

Key words: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Finite Element Analysis, Stress, Mechanical, Biomechanics, Tissue Engineering

Zhu Guang-duo, Guo Wan-shou, Cheng Li-ming, Liu Zhao-hui, Zhang Qi-dong. Finite element analysis of tibial slope in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2015, 19(44): 7156-7162.

Figures/Tables 6

References

[1] O'Rourke MR, Gardner JJ, Callaghan JJ, et al. The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2005;440:27-37.

[2] Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’connor JJ. The Oxford Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty A Ten-Year Survival Study. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1998; 80(6):983-989.

[3] Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr, et al. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2010;25(5):735-740.

[4] Müller PE, Pellengahr C, Witt M, et al. Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty.2004;19(3):296-301.

[5] Zeng C, Cheng L, Wei J, et al. The influence of the tibial plateau slopes on injury of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.2014; 22(1):53-65.

[6] Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, et al. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res.2013;99(4):S219-S225.

[7] Barbadoro P, Ensini A, Leardini A, et al. Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.2014;22(12): 3157-3162.

[8] Giffin JR, Vogrin TM, Zantop T, et al. Effects of increasing tibial slope on the biomechanics of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(2):376-382.

[9] Donzelli PS, Spilker RL, Ateshian GA, et al. Contact analysis of biphasic transversely isotropic cartilage layers and correlations with tissue failure. J Biomech.1999;32(10): 1037-1047.

[10] LeRoux MA, Setton LA. Experimental and biphasic FEM determinations of the material properties and hydraulic permeability of the meniscus in tension. J Biomech Eng.2002; 124(3): 315-321.

[11] Cowin SC. The mechanical and stress adaptive properties of bone.Ann Biomed Eng.1983;11(3-4): 263-295.

[12] Goldstein SA, Wilson DL, Sonstegard DA, et al. The mechanical properties of human tibial trabecular bone as a function of metaphyseal location. J Biomech.1983;16(12): 965-969.

[13] Peña E, Calvo B, Martinez MA, et al. Finite element analysis of the effect of meniscal tears and meniscectomies on human knee biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2005;20(5): 498-507.

[14] Weiss JA, Gardiner JC. Computational modeling of ligament mechanics. Crit Rev Biomed Eng.2001;29(3):303-371.

[15] Bao HR, Zhu D, Gong H, et al. The effect of complete radial lateral meniscus posterior root tear on the knee contact mechanics: a finite element analysis. J Orthop Sci.2013;18(2): 256-263.

[16] Taylor M, Tanner KE, Freeman MA. Finite element analysis of the implanted proximal tibia: a relationship between the initial cancellous bone stresses and implant migration. J Biomech. 1998;31(4): 303-310.

[17] Yao J, Snibbe J, Maloney M, et al. Stresses and strains in the medial meniscus of an ACL deficient knee under anterior loading: a finite element analysis with image-based experimental validation. J Biomech Eng.2006;128(1): 135-141.

[18] Shepherd DE, Seedhom BB. The'instantaneous' compressive modulus of human articular cartilage in joints of the lower limb. Rheumatology (Oxford).1999;38(2): 124-132.

[19] Bendjaballah MZ, Shirazi-Adl A, Zukor DJ. Biomechanical response of the passive human knee joint under anterior-posterior forces. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).1998; 13(8): 625-633.

[20] Peña E, Calvo B, Martinez MA, et al. A three-dimensional finite element analysis of the combined behavior of ligaments and menisci in the healthy human knee joint. J Biomech. 2006; 39(9): 1686-1701.

[21] Hopkins AR, New AM, Rodriguez-y-Baena F, et al. Finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys.2010;32(1): 14-21.

[22] Mootanah R, Imhauser CW, Reisse F, et al. Development and validation of a computational model of the knee joint for the evaluation of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin.2014;17(13): 1502-1517.

[23] Moglo KE, Shirazi-Adl A. On the coupling between anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments, and knee joint response under anterior femoral drawer in flexion: a finite element study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2003;18(8): 751-759.

[24] Peña E, Martinez MA, Calvo B, et al. A finite element simulation of the effect of graft stiffness and graft tensioning in ACL reconstruction. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2005;20(6): 636-644.

[25] Song Y, Debski RE, Musahl V, et al. A three-dimensional finite element model of the human anterior cruciate ligament: a computational analysis with experimental validation. J Biomech. 2004;37(3): 383-390.

[26] Pandit H, Jenkins C, Barker K, et al. The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2006;88(1): 54-60.

[27] Kwon OR, Kang KT, Son J, et al. Biomechanical comparison of fixed-and mobile-bearing for unicomparmental knee arthroplasty using finite element analysis. J Orthop Res.2014; 32(2): 338-345.

[28] Crockett R, Roba M, Naka M, et al. Friction, lubrication, and polymer transfer between UHMWPE and CoCrMo hip‐implant materials: A fluorescence microscopy study. J Biomed Mater Res A.2009;89(4): 1011-1018.

[29] Innocenti B, Bilgen ÖF, Labey L, et al. Load Sharing and Ligament Strains in Balanced, Overstuffed and Understuffed UKA. A Validated Finite Element Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(7):1491-1498.

[30] Kurosawa H, Fukubayashi T, Nakajima H. Load-bearing mode of the knee joint: physical behavior of the knee joint with or without menisci. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1980;149: 283-290.

[31] Fukubayashi T, Kurosawa H. The contact area and pressure distribution pattern of the knee: a study of normal and osteoarthrotic knee joints. Acta Orthop Scand.1980;51(1-6): 871-879.

[32] Kim SJ, Bae JH, Lim HC. Factors affecting the postoperative limb alignment and clinical outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2012; 27(6):1210-1215.

[33] Konyves A, Willis-Owen CA, Spriggins AJ. The long-term benefit of computer-assisted surgical navigation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5(94): 54-59.

[34] Lewis JL, Lew WD, Schmidt J. Description and error evaluation of an in vitro knee joint testing system. J Biomech Eng.1988;110(3): 238-248.

[35] Simpson DJ, Price AJ, Gulati A, et al. Elevated proximal tibial strains following unicompartmental knee replacement-a possible cause of pain. Med Eng Phys.2009;31(7): 752-757.

[36] Small SR, Berend ME, Rogge RD, et al. Tibial loading after UKA: evaluation of tibial slope, resection depth, medial shift and component rotation. J Arthroplasty.2013;28(9): 179-183.

[37] Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, et al. Three‐dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res.2005;23(3): 549-554.

[38] Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2004;86(3): 506-511.

[39] Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, et al. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty.2008;23(2): 159-163.

[40] Hadley NA, Brown TD, Weinstein SL. The effects of contact pressure elevations and aseptic necrosis on the long-term outcome of congenital hip dislocation. J Orthop Res.1990;8(4): 504-513.

[41] Suero EM, Citak M, Cross MB, et al. Effects of tibial slope changes in the stability of fixed bearing medial unicompartmental arthroplasty in anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees. Knee.2012;19(4): 365-369.

[42] Weber P, Schröder C, Schmidutz F, et al. Increase of tibial slope reduces backside wear in medial mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2013;28(8): 904-909.