A Critical Evaluation of Biologic Fixation for Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Allan M. Weinstein

Abstract

The use of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement has unquestionably revolutionized the field of total joint replacement. Recently, however, long-term clinical results in which total joint replacement has been evaluated for periods in excess of 5–10 years have revealed that this system of prosthetic fixation is far from ideal. A significant degree of prosthetic loosening has been observed, demonstrating the need of a more perfect method of skeletal attachment of prosthetic devices. Thus, much research is currently being conducted on methods of biologic fixation of prosthetic devices, thereby avoiding the necessity for use of the acrylic bone cement.

Keywords

Fatigue Titanium Porosity Foam Polyethylene 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Engh CA:Hip arthroplasty with a Moore prosthesis with porous coating:a five-year study. Clin Orthop Rel Res 176:52, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ:Comparison of porous metal-bone ingrowth and bone cement fixations:an internally controlled joint re-placement study. Paper presented at 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Birmingham, Alabama, April 27-May 1, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ:Prostheses fixtured by bone ingrowth into porous-coated metal:a clinical study of four major joints. Paper presented at 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Birmingham, Alabama, April 27-May 1, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hungerford DS, Kenna RV:Preliminary experience with a total knee prosthesis with porous coating used without cement. Clin Orthop Rel Res 176:95, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 4A.
    Bobyn JD, Pilliar RM, Cameron MB, Weatherly GC, Kent GM:The effect of porous surface configuration on the tensile strength of fixation of implants by bone ingrowth. Clin Orthop Rel Res 149:291, 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 4B.
    Galante J, Rostoker W:Fiber metal composites in the fixation of skeletal prosthesis. J Biomed Res Symp 4:43, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4C.
    Cameron HU, Pilliar RM, Macnab I:The effect of movement on the bonding of porous metal to bone. J Biomed Res 7:301, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 4D.
    Martens M, Ducheyne P, DeMeester P, Mu- lier JC:Skeletal fixation of implants by bone ingrowth into surface pores. Arch Orthop Traumat Surg 97:110, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 4E.
    Ducheyne P, Aernoudt E, DeMeester P, Martens M, Mulier JC, Van Leeuwen D:Factors governing the mechanical behavior of the im-plant-porous coating-trabecular bone inter-face, J Biomech 11:297, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 4F.
    Welch RP, Pilliar RM, Macnab I:Surgical implants:the role of surface porosity in fixation to bone and acrylic, J Bone Joint Surg 53A (5):963, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. 4G.
    Heimke G, Schulte W, d’Hoedt B, Griss P, Busing CM, Stock D:The influence of fine surface structures on the osseo-integration of implants. Int J Artif Organs 5 (3):207, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 4H.
    Hulbert SF, Cooke FW, Klawitter JJ, Leonard RB, Sauer BW, Moyle DD:Attachment of prostheses to the musculoskeletal system by tissue ingrowth and mechanical interlocking. J Biomed Res Symp 4:1, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 41.
    Cameron HU, Macnab I:The rate of bone in-growth into porous metal. J Biomed Res, 10:295, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 4J.
    Klawitter JJ, Bagwell JG, Weinstein AM, Sauer B W:An evaluation of bone growth into porous high density polyethylene. J Biomed Res 10:311, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 5.
    Elve MA, Kilner T, Pilliar RM, Weatherly GC:Structure-property relationships for porous coated Co-Cr surgical implants, Trans. 7th Annual Meeting of Society for Biomaterials, 1981, Vol. IV.Google Scholar
  16. 6.
    Hirschorn JS, McBeath AA, Dustoor MR:Porous titanium surgical implant materials. J Biomed Res Symp 2 (1):49, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. 7.
    Klawitter JJ, Weinstein AM, Peterson LJ:Fabrication and characterization of porous- rooted cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (Co- Cr-Mo) alloy dental implants. J Dent Res 56 (5):474, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 8.
    Galante J, Rostoker W, Lueck R, and Ray RD:Sintered fiber metal composites as a basis for attachments of implants to bone. J Bone Joint Surg 53A:101, 1971.Google Scholar
  19. 9.
    Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Koeneman JB:Structure-property relationship for porous Ti- 6A1-4V. 3rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, New Orleans, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    Pilliar RM, Blackwell RA, Wombwell RD:Fa-tigue properties of porous metal coated implants. 3rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, New Orleans, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 11.
    Ducheyne P:Pressure sintered porous coat-ings for bone ingrowth. Trans. 7th Annual Meeting of Society for Biomaterials, 1981, Vol. IV.Google Scholar
  22. 12.
    Ducheyne P, DeMeester P, Aernoudt E, Martens M, Mulier JC:Elastic and mechanical properties of porous metal fibre structures allowing bone ingrowth. In:Advances in Biomaterial. Hastings, GW and Williams, DF. Eds. J. Wiley & Sons, England, 1980, page 337.Google Scholar
  23. 13.
    Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Cleveland TW, Amoss DC:Electrical stimulation of bone growth in porous A1203. J Biomed Res 10:231, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 14.
    Ducheyne P, DeMeester P, Aernoudt E:Iso- statieally compacted metal fibre porous coat-ings for bone ingrowth. Powder Metal Int 11 (3):115, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 15.
    Ducheyne P, Aernoudt E, DeMeester P:The mechanical behaviour of porous austenitic stainless steel fibre structures. J Material Sci 13:2650, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 16.
    Rostoker W, Galante JO, Shen G:Some me-chanical properties of sintered fiber metal composites. J Testing Eval 2 (2):107, 1974.Google Scholar
  27. 17.
    Anderson R, Cook SD, Weinstein AM:The interface mechanics of LTI pyrolytic carbon, porous titanium, and carbon-coated porous ti-tanium implants. Paper presented at 28th An-nual ORS, New Orleans, January 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 18.
    Wheeler KR, Marshall RP, Sump KR:Porous metals as a hard tissue substitute. Biomat Med Dev Art Org 1 (2):337, 1973.Google Scholar
  29. 19.
    Georgette FS, Cook SD, Skinner HB, Weinstein AM, Yapp R:Fatigue behavior of coated and uncoated Ti-6A1-4V surgical implant material. Trans. 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, 1983, Vol VI, p. 6.Google Scholar
  30. 20.
    Clemow AJT, Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ, Koeneman J, Anderson J:Interface Mechanics of Porous Titanium Implants. J Biomed Res 15:73, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 21.
    Bobyn JD, Pilliar RM, Cameron HU, Weatherly GC:The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth of bone. Clin Orthop Rel Res 150:263, 1980.Google Scholar
  32. Walsh KA, Cook SD, Skinner HB, Weinstein AM:Biomechanical and histological evaluation of bone-porous Co-Cr-Mo alloy inter-faces. Paper presented at 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Birmingham, Alabama, April 27-May 1, 1983.Google Scholar
  33. 23.
    Walker PS, Ranawat C, Insall J:Fixation of the tibial components of condylar replacement knee prostheses. Biomechanics 9:269, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walker PS, Reilly D, Ben-Dov M:Load transfer in the upper tibia before and after tibial component attachment. Presented at the 26th Annual ORS, Atlanta, February 5 - 7, 1980.Google Scholar
  35. Walker PS, Thatcher J, Ewald FC, Milden J:Variables affecting the cement stresses and the tilting of tibial components. Presented at the 27th Annual ORS, Las Vegas, February 24 - 26, 1981.Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    Walker PS, Greene D, Ben-Dov M, Thatcher J, Ewald FC:Fixation of tibial components of knee prostheses. 25th Annual ORS, San Francisco, February 1979.Google Scholar
  37. Crowninshield RD, Murase K, Pedersen DR:An analysis of tibial component design in total knee arthroplasty. Presented at the 28th An-nual ORS, New Orleans January 19 - 21, 1982.Google Scholar
  38. 28.
    Bartel DL, Santavicca EA, Burstein AH:The Effects of Pegs and Trays on Stresses Associ-ated with Loosening of Knee Prostheses. Cor-nell University, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and The Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, N.Y., 1980.Google Scholar
  39. Vichnin HH, Hayes WC, Lotke PA:Para-metric finite element studies of tibial component fixation in the total condylar knee prosthesis. Presented at the 25th Annual ORS, San Francisco, February 20 - 22, 1979.Google Scholar
  40. Askew MJ, Lewis JL, Keer LM:The effects of post geometry, material, and location on interface stress levels in tibial components of total knee prostheses. Presented at the 25th Annual ORS, San Francisco, February 20 - 22, 1979.Google Scholar
  41. 31.
    Askew MJ, Lewis JL, Haycox D, Williams JL, Hori FY:Interface stresses in a prosthesis-tibia structure with varying bone properties. 24th Annual ORS, Dallas, February 1978.Google Scholar
  42. 32.
    Smidt GL:Biomechanical analysis of knee flexion and extension. J Biomech, 6:79, 1973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 33.
    Walker P, Granholm R, Lowrey R:The fixa-tion of femoral components of condylar knee prostheses. Engineering in Medicine, 1982.Google Scholar
  44. 34.
    Hedley AK, et al:Porous ingrowth fixation of the femoral component in a canine surface replacement of the hip. Clin Orthop Rel Res 163:300, 1982.Google Scholar
  45. 35.
    Hampton SJ, Andriacchi TP, Urban RM, Galante JO:Changes in bone strain distribution due to bone remodelling in porous fixation canine hip implants. 29th Annual ORS, Ana-heim, March 1983.Google Scholar
  46. 36.
    Leudeman R, Skinner HB, Cook SD, Weinstein AM:Bone remodeling associated with biological prosthetic attachment. 28th Annual ORS, New Orleans, January 1982.Google Scholar
  47. 37.
    Pilliar RM, Bratina WJ:Micromechanical bonding at a porous surface structured implant interface:the effect on implant stressing. J Biomed Engin 2:49, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 38.
    Andersson GBJ, Gaechter A, Galante JO, Rostoker W:Segmental replacement of long bones in baboons using a fiber titanium im-plant. J Bone Joint Surg 60A:1, 1978.Google Scholar
  49. 39.
    Robertson DM, St. Pierre L, Chahal R:Pre-liminary observations of bone ingrowth into porous materials. J Biomed Mater Res 10:335, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 40.
    Young FA, Kresch CH, Spector M:Mechanical properties of the bone-implant interface for porous titanium and porous polyethylene dental implants. In Hastings GW, William DF (eds):Mechanical Properties of Biomaterial. London, Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  51. 41.
    Salman NN, Park JB:The effect of direct elec-trical current stimulation of the bone/porous metallic implant interface. Biomaterials 1:209, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 42.
    Nilles JL, Lapitsky M:Biomechanical investi-gations of bone:porous carbon and porous metal interfaces. J Biomed Res Symp 4:63, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 43.
    Colella SM, Miller AG, Starg RG, Stoebe TG:Fixation of porous titanium implants in corti-cal bone enhanced by electrical stimulation. J Biomed Res 15:37, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 44.
    Nilles JL, Coletti JM Jr, Wilson C:Biomechanical evaluation of bone:porous material interfaces. J Biomed Res 7:231, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 45.
    Spector M, Michno MJ, Shamrook WH, Kwiat-Kowski GT:A high-modulus polymer for porous orthopedic implants:biochemical compatibility of porous implants. J Biomed Res 12:665, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 46.
    Ahmed AM, Burke DL, Yu A, Miller J:Patello- femoral joint reaction:an invitro biomechanical study. 29th Annual ORS, Anaheim, March 1983.Google Scholar
  57. 47.
    Hayes WC, Levine BM, Finite element analysis of patellar resurface procedures. 26th Annual ORS, Atlanta, February 1980.Google Scholar
  58. 48.
    Cepulo AJ, Stahurski TN, Moran JM, Matejcayk MB, Greenwald AS:Mechanical characteristics of patello-femoral replacements. 29th Annual ORS, Anaheim, March 1983.Google Scholar
  59. 49.
    Heimke G, Schulte W, Griss P, Jentschura G, Schutz P:Generalization of biomechanical rules for the fixation of bone, joint, and tooth replacements. J Biomed Res 14:537, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomas KA, Cook SD, Skinner HB, Weinstein AM, Yapp R, Haubold A:Design variables af-fecting bone-biomaterial interface mechanics. Paper presented at 9th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Birmingham, Alabama, April 27-May 1, 1983.Google Scholar
  61. 51.
    Cook SD, Anderson RC, Skinner HB, Weinstein AM:An evaluation of direct skeletal at-tachment mechanism for hip prostheses. 29th Annual ORS, Anaheim, March 1983.Google Scholar
  62. 52.
    Carter DR, Harris WH, Vasu R, Caler WE:The mechanical and biological response of cortical bone to in vivo strain histories. In:Mechanical Properties of Bone. AMD-Vol. 45. Biomechanics Symposium American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  63. 53.
    Frost HM:A determinant of bone architecture. Clin Orthop Rel Res 175:286, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allan M. Weinstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations