4.6 Article

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

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184361

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [DPI2014-53401-C2-1-R]
  2. SECOT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available