The Effects of Implant Orientations and Implant–Bone Interfacial Conditions on Potential Causes of Failure of Tibial Component Due to Total Ankle Replacement
- 59 Downloads
Aseptic loosening of implant components is a major issue of failure for total ankle replacement (TAR). One of the causes of implant loosening is a result of excessive bone density loss. This study is aimed at determining the effects of implant orientations and implant–bone interface conditions on the potential causes of failure of the tibial component. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) models of intact and implanted ankles were developed using computed tomography data sets. To understand the effect of implant orientations, four other FE models of the implanted ankle were developed separately, which consist of a variation of varus and valgus angles of 5° and 10°, respectively. Dorsiflexion and neutral and plantar flexion positions were considered as applied loading conditions. Orientations of the implant caused a decrease in strain energy density (SED) of the tibia bone away from the implant vicinity, where around 10–50 and 10–60% reduction in SED was found owing to the orientation of the 5° and 10° varus and valgus angles. Decreases in SED were found to be greater in the case of debonded implant–bone interface conditions compared to bonded interface conditions. This study indicates that proper bonding between implant and bone and implant orientation are important for long-term survival of the tibial component owing to TAR.
KeywordsAnkle joint Tibia Total ankle replacement Implant orientation Implant–bone interface condition
The authors would like to acknowledge the Indian Institute of Technology Mandi for supporting this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors hereby state that regarding submission of this research paper, there are no financial and personal relationships with other people and organisations.
- 1.National Joint Registry. (2016). National Joint Registry for England and Wales, 13th Annual Report.Google Scholar
- 2.Australia National Replacement Registry. (2016). Demographics and outcomes of Ankle Arthroplasty.Google Scholar
- 5.Engh, C. A., O’Connor, D., & Jasty, M. (1992). Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 285, 13–29.Google Scholar
- 10.Georgeanu, V., Atasiel, T., & Gruionu, L. (2014). Periprosthetic bone remodelling in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Maedica: A Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(1), 56–61.Google Scholar
- 21.Ozen, M., Sayman, O., & Havitcioglu, H. (2013). Modelling and stress analyses of a normal foot-ankle and a prosthetic foot-ankle complex. Acta of Bioengineering & Biomechanics, 15(3), 19–27.Google Scholar
- 22.Rodrigues, D.S.O.S. (MS. Thesis 2013). Biomechanics of the total ankle arthroplasty: Stress analysis and bone remodelling. Tecnico Lisboa, Portugal. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395145522891/Tese.pdf.
- 24.Bouguecha, A., Weigel, N., & Behrens, B. A. (2011). Numerical simulation of strain-adaptive bone remodelling in the ankle joint. Biomedical Engineering Online, 10(58), 2–13.Google Scholar
- 33.STAR Surgical Technique—Small Bone Innovations, Inc. Cited 2013 4th March. http://www.star-ankle.com/.
- 35.Ramlee, M. H., Kadir, M. R. A., & Harun, H. (2013). Three-dimensional modelling and analysis of a human ankle joint. IEEE Conference on Research and Development. Putrajaya, Malaysia.Google Scholar
- 42.Netter, F. H., & Hansen, J. T. (2003). Atlas of human anatomy (3rd ed.). Teterboro, NJ: Icon Learning Systems.Google Scholar