Evaluation of UHMWPE Component under Various Positions for UKA

Abstract:

The development of artificial joints is now considered quite mature, and the main treatment for osteoarthritis. However, in recent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) clinical follow-ups, complications due to wear of polyethylene (PE) tibial components still exist. Therefore, this study focused on the possibility of avoiding and minimizing damage to the PE tibial component. Currently, the most common problem in the application of UKA is the malresection of the tibial plateau, often resulting in malpositioning of the tibial implant. This positioning problem may be the main reason for advanced wear and dislocation of a PE tibial component. In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) was used to study the stress change of malpositioned PE tibial components in order to better understand the damaging mechanism on PE tibial components. It was found that anatomically designed unicompartmental knee prostheses (UKP) allowed more positioning error in varus tilt than symmetrically designed ones. And both should avoid any positional error greater than 10° valgus tilt. Otherwise, increased wear of PE tibial components would result in shortened lifetime of the artificial joint.

• Periodical: Materials Science Forum (Volume 594)
• Pages: 72-77
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.594.72
• Online since: August 2008
• Authors: Chien Wei Liu, Wen Lung Li, Chen Tung Yu, Chia Chi Lo
• Keywords: Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Knee, Position, Tibial, Unicompartmental

References

[1] T.J. Gioe, K.K. Killeen, D.P. Hoeffel, J.M. Bert, T.K. Comfort, K. Scheltema, S. Mehle and K. Grimm: Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry. Clin Orthop Rel Res Vol. 416 (2003), pp.111-119.

DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000147136.98303.9d

[2] R. Iorio and W.L. Healy: Current concepts review: unicompartmental arthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Vol. 85A (2003), pp.1351-1364.

[3] G. Vardi and A.E. Strover: Early complications of unicompartmental knee replacement: The Droitwich experience. The Knee Vol. 11 (2004), pp.389-394.

DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.02.005

[4] H. Bergenudd: Porous-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: a 3- to 9-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty Vol. 10 (1995), pp. S8-S13.

DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80225-6

[5] C.J. Della Valle, R.A. Berger and A.G. Rosenberg: Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using intramedullary femoral alignment. Oper Tech Orthop Vol. 16 (2006), pp.186-194.

DOI: 10.1053/j.oto.2006.06.002

[6] P. Hernigou and G. Deschamps: Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res Vol. 423 (2004), pp.161-165.

DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000128285.90459.12

[7] M.B. Collier, T.H. Eickmann, F. Sukezaki, J.P. McAuley and G.A. Engh: Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty Vol. 21 (2006), pp.108-115.

DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.04.012

[8] P.A. Keblish: Surgical techniques in the performance of unicompartmental arthroplasties. Operative Tech Orthop Vol. 8 (1998), pp.134-145.

DOI: 10.1016/s1048-6666(98)80023-2

[9] T.Q. Lee, J.E. Budoff, and F.E. Glaser: Patellar Component Positioning in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, Vol. 366 (1999), pp.274-281.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199909000-00035

[10] J.H. Heegaard, P.F. Leyvraz, and C.B. Hovey: A computer model to simulate patellar biomechanics following total knee replacement: the effects of femoral component alignment. Clin Biomech Vol. 16 (2001), pp.415-423.

DOI: 10.1016/s0268-0033(01)00020-1

[11] J.B. Morrison: The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking. J Biomech Vol. 3 (1970), pp.51-61.

[12] R.W.W. Hsu, S. Himeno, M.B. Coventry and E.Y. S Chao: Normal axial alignment of the lower extremityand load-bearing distribution at the knee. Clin Orthop Rel Res Vol. 255 (1990), pp.215-227.

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199006000-00029