Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 541–551 | Cite as

The Effects of Implant Orientations and Implant–Bone Interfacial Conditions on Potential Causes of Failure of Tibial Component Due to Total Ankle Replacement

  • Subrata Mondal
  • Rajesh GhoshEmail author
Original Article


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.


Ankle 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. 1.
    National Joint Registry. (2016). National Joint Registry for England and Wales, 13th Annual Report.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australia National Replacement Registry. (2016). Demographics and outcomes of Ankle Arthroplasty.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henricson, A., Nilsson, J. A., & Carlsson, A. (2011). 10-Year survival of total ankle arthroplasties: A report on 780 cases from the Swedish Ankle Register. Acta Orthopaedica, 82, 655–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghosh, R., & Gupta, S. (2014). Bone remodelling around cementless composite acetabular components: The effects of implant geometry and implant–bone interfacial conditions. Journal of Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 32, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Conti, S. F., & Wong, Y. S. (2001). Complications of total ankle replacement. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 391, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadoghi, P., Roush, G., & Kastner, N. (2014). Failure modes for total ankle arthroplasty: A statistical analysis of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 134, 1361–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghosh, R., Mukharjee, K., & Gupta, S. (2013). Bone remodelling around uncemented metallic and ceramic acetabular components. Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 227(5), 490–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jung, J. M., & Kim, C. S. (2014). Analysis of stress distribution around total hip stems custom-designed for the standarized Asian femur configuration. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, 28(3), 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Mellal, A., Wiskott, H. W. A., Botsis, J., Scherrer, S. S., & Belser, U. C. (2004). Stimulating effect of implant loading on surrounding bone. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 15, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huiskes, R., Weinans, H., Grootenboer, H. J., Dalstra, M., Fudala, B., & Slooff, T. J. (1987). Adaptive bone-remodelling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 20, 1135–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang, I. G., Kim, I. Y., & Kwak, B. B. (2008). Analogy of strain energy density-based bone-remodelling algorithm and structural topology optimization. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 131(1), 011012–0110118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vickerstaff, A. J., Miles, W. A., & Cunningham, L. J. (2007). A brief history of total ankle replacement and review of the current status. Medical Engineering & Physics, 29, 1056–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wei, F., Hunley, C. S., & Powell, W. J. (2011). Development and validation of a computational model to study the effect of foot constraint on ankle injury due to the external rotation. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 39, 756–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valderrabano, V., Hintermann, B., & Nigg, M. B. (2003). Kinematics changes after fusion and total replacement of the ankle. Part 1-Range of motion (ROM). Foot and Ankle International, 24, 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, C. M., Smolinski, P., & Conti, S. (2004). Stresses in polyethylene lines in a semi constrained ankle prosthesis. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 126, 636–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reggiani, B., Leardini, A., & Corazza, F. (2006). Finite element analysis of total ankle replacement during the stance phase of gait. Journal of Biomechanics, 39, 1435–1443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richter, M., Zech, S., & Westfhal, R. (2007). Robotic cadaver testing of a new total ankle prosthesis model. Foot and Ankle International, 28, 1276–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Espinosa, N., Walti, M., & Favre, P. (2010). Misalignment of total ankle components can induce high joint contact pressures. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 92, 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Rodrigues, D.S.O.S. (MS. Thesis 2013). Biomechanics of the total ankle arthroplasty: Stress analysis and bone remodelling. Tecnico Lisboa, Portugal.
  23. 23.
    Elliot, J. B., Gundapaneni, D., & Goswami, T. (2014). Finite element analysis of stress and wear characterization in total ankle replacements. Journal of Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 34, 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Terrier, A., Larrea, X., & Guerdat, J. (2014). Development and experimental validation of a finite element model of total ankle replacement. Journal of Biomechanics, 47, 742–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Terrier, A., Fernandes, C. S., & Guillemin, M. (2017). Fixed and mobile bearing total ankle prostheses: Effect on tibial bone strain. Clinical Biomechanics, 48, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sopher, S. R., Andrew, A. A., & James, D. C. (2017). Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant–bone micromotion and bone strains. Medical Engineering & Physics, 42, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mondal, S., & Ghosh, R. (2017). A numerical study on stress distribution across the ankle joint: Effects of material distribution of bone, muscle force and ligaments. Journal of Orthopaedics, 14, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ali, M. A., Newman, S. D. S., Hopper, P. A., Davies, C. M., & Copp, J. B. (2017). The effect of implant position on bone strain following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone & Joint Research, 6(8), 522–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robert, L., & Barrack, M. D. (2003). Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: Implant design and orientation. Journal of American Academy Orthopaedic Surgeons, 11, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Varghese, B., Short, D., & Penmetsa, R. (2011). Computed-tomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurately capture strain response to bending and torsion. Journal of Biomechanics, 44, 1374–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ghosh, R., Pal, B., & Ghosh, D. (2015). Finite element analysis of a hemi-pelvis: The effect of inclusion of cartilage layer on acetabular stresses and strain. Computer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering, 18, 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    STAR Surgical Technique—Small Bone Innovations, Inc. Cited 2013 4th March.
  34. 34.
    Saltzman, C. L., Tochigi, Y., & Rudert, M. J. (2004). The effect of agility ankle prosthesis misalignment on the peri-ankle ligaments. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 424, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Linde, F., Hvid, I., & Madsen, F. (1992). The effect of specimen geometry on the mechanical behaviour of trabecular bone specimens. Journal of Biomechanics, 25, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Beumar, A., Hemert, W. L. V., & Swierstra, B. A. (2003). A biomechanical evaluation of the tibiofibular and tibiotalar ligaments of the ankle. Foot and Ankle International, 24, 426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liacouras, P. C., & Wayne, J. S. (2007). Computational modelling to predict mechanical function of joints: Application to the lower leg simulation of two cadaver studies. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 129, 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Corazza, F., O’Connor, J. J., & Leardini, A. (2003). Ligament fibre recruitment and forces for the anterior drawer test at the human ankle joint. Journal of Biomechanics, 36(3), 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bekerom, V. D. M. P., & Raven, E. E. (2007). The distal fascicle of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament as a cause of tibiotalar impingement syndrome: A current concepts review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 15(4), 465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seireg, A., & Arvikar, R. J. (1975). The prediction of muscular load shearing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. Journal of Biomechanics, 8, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Netter, F. H., & Hansen, J. T. (2003). Atlas of human anatomy (3rd ed.). Teterboro, NJ: Icon Learning Systems.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carter, D., Orr, T. E., & Fyhrie, D. (1989). Relationships between bone loading history and femoral cancellous bone architecture. Journal of Biomechanics, 22(3), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Rietbergen, B., Huiskes, R., Weinnans, H., Sumner, D. R., Turner, T. M., & Galante, J. O. (1993). The mechanism of bone remodelling and resorption around press-fitted THA stems. Journal of Biomechanics, 26(4–5), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hoffman, O. (1967). The brittle strength of orthotropic material. Journal of Composite Materials, 1, 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stone, J. L., Beaupre, G. S., & Hayes, W. C. (1983). Multiaxial strength characteristics of trabecular bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 16(9), 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kaplan, S. J., Hayes, W. C., & Stone, J. L. (1985). Tensile strength of bovine trabecular bone. Journal of Biomechanics, 18(9), 723–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwanese Society of Biomedical Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MandiMandiIndia

Personalised recommendations