Jin-Ah Lee, Yong-Gon Koh, Paul S Kim, Joon-Hee Park, Kyoung-Tak Kang
{"title":"局部膝关节假体表面匹配不匹配对胫股接触应力的影响。","authors":"Jin-Ah Lee, Yong-Gon Koh, Paul S Kim, Joon-Hee Park, Kyoung-Tak Kang","doi":"10.1302/2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Focal knee arthroplasty is an attractive alternative to knee arthroplasty for young patients because it allows preservation of a large amount of bone for potential revisions. However, the mechanical behaviour of cartilage has not yet been investigated because it is challenging to evaluate in vivo contact areas, pressure, and deformations from metal implants. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the contact pressure in the tibiofemoral joint with a focal knee arthroplasty using a finite element model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The mechanical behaviour of the cartilage surrounding a metal implant was evaluated using finite element analysis. We modelled focal knee arthroplasty with placement flush, 0.5 mm deep, or protruding 0.5 mm with regard to the level of the surrounding cartilage. We compared contact stress and pressure for bone, implant, and cartilage under static loading conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Contact stress on medial and lateral femoral and tibial cartilages increased and decreased, respectively, the most and the least in the protruding model compared to the intact model. The deep model exhibited the closest tibiofemoral contact stress to the intact model. In addition, the deep model demonstrated load sharing between the bone and the implant, while the protruding and flush model showed stress shielding. The data revealed that resurfacing with a focal knee arthroplasty does not cause increased contact pressure with deep implantation. However, protruding implantation leads to increased contact pressure, decreased bone stress, and biomechanical disadvantage in an in vivo application.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results show that it is preferable to leave an edge slightly deep rather than flush and protruding.</p>","PeriodicalId":9074,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/2b/BJR-12-2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1.PMC10427223.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of surface matching mismatch of focal knee articular prosthetic on tibiofemoral contact stress using finite element analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jin-Ah Lee, Yong-Gon Koh, Paul S Kim, Joon-Hee Park, Kyoung-Tak Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Focal knee arthroplasty is an attractive alternative to knee arthroplasty for young patients because it allows preservation of a large amount of bone for potential revisions. However, the mechanical behaviour of cartilage has not yet been investigated because it is challenging to evaluate in vivo contact areas, pressure, and deformations from metal implants. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the contact pressure in the tibiofemoral joint with a focal knee arthroplasty using a finite element model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The mechanical behaviour of the cartilage surrounding a metal implant was evaluated using finite element analysis. We modelled focal knee arthroplasty with placement flush, 0.5 mm deep, or protruding 0.5 mm with regard to the level of the surrounding cartilage. We compared contact stress and pressure for bone, implant, and cartilage under static loading conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Contact stress on medial and lateral femoral and tibial cartilages increased and decreased, respectively, the most and the least in the protruding model compared to the intact model. The deep model exhibited the closest tibiofemoral contact stress to the intact model. In addition, the deep model demonstrated load sharing between the bone and the implant, while the protruding and flush model showed stress shielding. The data revealed that resurfacing with a focal knee arthroplasty does not cause increased contact pressure with deep implantation. However, protruding implantation leads to increased contact pressure, decreased bone stress, and biomechanical disadvantage in an in vivo application.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These results show that it is preferable to leave an edge slightly deep rather than flush and protruding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/2b/BJR-12-2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1.PMC10427223.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.128.BJR-2023-0010.R1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CELL & TISSUE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of surface matching mismatch of focal knee articular prosthetic on tibiofemoral contact stress using finite element analysis.
Aims: Focal knee arthroplasty is an attractive alternative to knee arthroplasty for young patients because it allows preservation of a large amount of bone for potential revisions. However, the mechanical behaviour of cartilage has not yet been investigated because it is challenging to evaluate in vivo contact areas, pressure, and deformations from metal implants. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the contact pressure in the tibiofemoral joint with a focal knee arthroplasty using a finite element model.
Methods: The mechanical behaviour of the cartilage surrounding a metal implant was evaluated using finite element analysis. We modelled focal knee arthroplasty with placement flush, 0.5 mm deep, or protruding 0.5 mm with regard to the level of the surrounding cartilage. We compared contact stress and pressure for bone, implant, and cartilage under static loading conditions.
Results: Contact stress on medial and lateral femoral and tibial cartilages increased and decreased, respectively, the most and the least in the protruding model compared to the intact model. The deep model exhibited the closest tibiofemoral contact stress to the intact model. In addition, the deep model demonstrated load sharing between the bone and the implant, while the protruding and flush model showed stress shielding. The data revealed that resurfacing with a focal knee arthroplasty does not cause increased contact pressure with deep implantation. However, protruding implantation leads to increased contact pressure, decreased bone stress, and biomechanical disadvantage in an in vivo application.
Conclusion: These results show that it is preferable to leave an edge slightly deep rather than flush and protruding.