Cargando…

Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems

The best methods to manage tibial bone defects following total knee arthroplasty remain under debate. Different fixation systems exist to help surgeons reconstruct knee osseous bone loss (such as tantalum cones, cement, modular metal augments, autografts, allografts and porous metaphyseal sleeves) H...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quilez, María Paz, Seral, Belen, Pérez, María Angeles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184361
_version_ 1783262613698772992
author Quilez, María Paz
Seral, Belen
Pérez, María Angeles
author_facet Quilez, María Paz
Seral, Belen
Pérez, María Angeles
author_sort Quilez, María Paz
collection PubMed
description The best methods to manage tibial bone defects following total knee arthroplasty remain under debate. Different fixation systems exist to help surgeons reconstruct knee osseous bone loss (such as tantalum cones, cement, modular metal augments, autografts, allografts and porous metaphyseal sleeves) However, the effects of the various solutions on the long-term outcome remain unknown. In the present work, a bone remodeling mathematical model was used to predict bone remodeling after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revision. Five different types of prostheses were analyzed: one with a straight stem; two with offset stems, with and without supplements; and two with sleeves, with and without stems. Alterations in tibia bone density distribution and implant Von Mises stresses were quantified. In all cases, the bone density decreased in the proximal epiphysis and medullary channels, and an increase in bone density was predicted in the diaphysis and around stem tips. The highest bone resorption was predicted for the offset prosthesis without the supplement, and the highest bone formation was computed for the straight stem. The highest Von Mises stress was obtained for the straight tibial stem, and the lowest was observed for the stemless metaphyseal sleeves prosthesis. The computational model predicted different behaviors among the five systems. We were able to demonstrate the importance of choosing an adequate revision system and that in silico models may help surgeons choose patient-specific treatments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5590921
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55909212017-09-15 Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems Quilez, María Paz Seral, Belen Pérez, María Angeles PLoS One Research Article The best methods to manage tibial bone defects following total knee arthroplasty remain under debate. Different fixation systems exist to help surgeons reconstruct knee osseous bone loss (such as tantalum cones, cement, modular metal augments, autografts, allografts and porous metaphyseal sleeves) However, the effects of the various solutions on the long-term outcome remain unknown. In the present work, a bone remodeling mathematical model was used to predict bone remodeling after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revision. Five different types of prostheses were analyzed: one with a straight stem; two with offset stems, with and without supplements; and two with sleeves, with and without stems. Alterations in tibia bone density distribution and implant Von Mises stresses were quantified. In all cases, the bone density decreased in the proximal epiphysis and medullary channels, and an increase in bone density was predicted in the diaphysis and around stem tips. The highest bone resorption was predicted for the offset prosthesis without the supplement, and the highest bone formation was computed for the straight stem. The highest Von Mises stress was obtained for the straight tibial stem, and the lowest was observed for the stemless metaphyseal sleeves prosthesis. The computational model predicted different behaviors among the five systems. We were able to demonstrate the importance of choosing an adequate revision system and that in silico models may help surgeons choose patient-specific treatments. Public Library of Science 2017-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5590921/ /pubmed/28886100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184361 Text en © 2017 Quilez et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Quilez, María Paz
Seral, Belen
Pérez, María Angeles
Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title_full Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title_fullStr Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title_full_unstemmed Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title_short Biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: A comparison of different implant systems
title_sort biomechanical evaluation of tibial bone adaptation after revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of different implant systems
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5590921/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886100
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184361
work_keys_str_mv AT quilezmariapaz biomechanicalevaluationoftibialboneadaptationafterrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyacomparisonofdifferentimplantsystems
AT seralbelen biomechanicalevaluationoftibialboneadaptationafterrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyacomparisonofdifferentimplantsystems
AT perezmariaangeles biomechanicalevaluationoftibialboneadaptationafterrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyacomparisonofdifferentimplantsystems