Cargando…

Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation

Most glenoid implants rely on large centrally located fixation features to avoid perforation of the glenoid vault in its peripheral regions. Upon revision of such components there may not be enough bone left for the reinsertion of an anatomical prosthesis. Multiple press‐fit small pegs would allow f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Geraldes, Diogo M., Hansen, Ulrich, Jeffers, Jonathan, Amis, Andrew A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5763372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28387966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23572
_version_ 1783291873334394880
author Geraldes, Diogo M.
Hansen, Ulrich
Jeffers, Jonathan
Amis, Andrew A.
author_facet Geraldes, Diogo M.
Hansen, Ulrich
Jeffers, Jonathan
Amis, Andrew A.
author_sort Geraldes, Diogo M.
collection PubMed
description Most glenoid implants rely on large centrally located fixation features to avoid perforation of the glenoid vault in its peripheral regions. Upon revision of such components there may not be enough bone left for the reinsertion of an anatomical prosthesis. Multiple press‐fit small pegs would allow for less bone resection and strong anchoring in the stiffer and denser peripheral subchondral bone. This study assessed the fixation characteristics, measured as the push‐in (P (in)) and pull‐out (P (out)) forces, and spring‐back, measured as the elastic displacement immediately after insertion, for five different small press‐fitted peg configurations manufactured out of UHMWPE cylinders (5 mm diameter and length). A total of 16 specimens for each configuration were tested in two types of solid bone substitute: Hard (40 PCF, 0.64 g/cm(3), worst‐case scenario of P (in)) and soft (15 PCF, 0.24 g/cm(3), worst‐case scenario of spring‐back and P (out)). Two different diametric interference‐fits were studied. Geometries with lower stiffness fins (large length to width aspect ratio) were the best performing designs in terms of primary fixation stability. They required the lowest force to fully seat, meaning they are less damaging to the bone during implantation, while providing the highest P (out)/P (in) ratio, indicating that when implanted they provide the strongest anchoring for the glenoid component. It is highlighted that drilling of chamfered holes could minimize spring‐back displacements. These findings are relevant for the design of implants press‐fitted pegs because primary fixation has been shown to be an important factor in achieving osseointegration and longevity of secondary fixation. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:2765–2772, 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5763372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57633722018-01-17 Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation Geraldes, Diogo M. Hansen, Ulrich Jeffers, Jonathan Amis, Andrew A. J Orthop Res RESEARCH ARTICLES Most glenoid implants rely on large centrally located fixation features to avoid perforation of the glenoid vault in its peripheral regions. Upon revision of such components there may not be enough bone left for the reinsertion of an anatomical prosthesis. Multiple press‐fit small pegs would allow for less bone resection and strong anchoring in the stiffer and denser peripheral subchondral bone. This study assessed the fixation characteristics, measured as the push‐in (P (in)) and pull‐out (P (out)) forces, and spring‐back, measured as the elastic displacement immediately after insertion, for five different small press‐fitted peg configurations manufactured out of UHMWPE cylinders (5 mm diameter and length). A total of 16 specimens for each configuration were tested in two types of solid bone substitute: Hard (40 PCF, 0.64 g/cm(3), worst‐case scenario of P (in)) and soft (15 PCF, 0.24 g/cm(3), worst‐case scenario of spring‐back and P (out)). Two different diametric interference‐fits were studied. Geometries with lower stiffness fins (large length to width aspect ratio) were the best performing designs in terms of primary fixation stability. They required the lowest force to fully seat, meaning they are less damaging to the bone during implantation, while providing the highest P (out)/P (in) ratio, indicating that when implanted they provide the strongest anchoring for the glenoid component. It is highlighted that drilling of chamfered holes could minimize spring‐back displacements. These findings are relevant for the design of implants press‐fitted pegs because primary fixation has been shown to be an important factor in achieving osseointegration and longevity of secondary fixation. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 35:2765–2772, 2017. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-23 2017-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5763372/ /pubmed/28387966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23572 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle RESEARCH ARTICLES
Geraldes, Diogo M.
Hansen, Ulrich
Jeffers, Jonathan
Amis, Andrew A.
Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title_full Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title_fullStr Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title_full_unstemmed Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title_short Stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
title_sort stability of small pegs for cementless implant fixation
topic RESEARCH ARTICLES
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5763372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28387966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jor.23572
work_keys_str_mv AT geraldesdiogom stabilityofsmallpegsforcementlessimplantfixation
AT hansenulrich stabilityofsmallpegsforcementlessimplantfixation
AT jeffersjonathan stabilityofsmallpegsforcementlessimplantfixation
AT amisandrewa stabilityofsmallpegsforcementlessimplantfixation