两种无柄肩关节假体在骨矿物质密度均较差的尸体标本中的生物力学评估

IF 1.4 3区 医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
{"title":"两种无柄肩关节假体在骨矿物质密度均较差的尸体标本中的生物力学评估","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Stemless shoulder arthroplasty offers several advantages, such as preserving bone stock and reducing periprosthetic fracture risk. However, implant motion can deter osteointegration and increase bone resorption, where micromotion less than 0.150 mm is crucial for bony ingrowth and vital to the success of the implant. The interaction between the implant and the metaphyseal bone and its effects on stability remains unclear. Therefore, this cadaveric study aims to assess the immediate stability of two stemless prostheses in low bone density specimens.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty cadaveric shoulders were used to compare the stability of two stemless shoulder implants by Zimmer-Biomet (model A) and Exactech (model B), subjected to loads of 220 N, 520 N, and 820 N to assess strain and micromotion.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Micromotion at 220 N load was 0.061 ± 0.080 mm and 0.053 ± 0.050 mm, and at 520 N load, 0.279 ± 0.37 mm and 0.311 ± 0.35 mm for models A and B, respectively. The estimated mean force required to achieve a 150 μm micromotion was 356 ± 116 N and 315 ± 61 N for models A and B, respectively. Motion analysis revealed distinct movement patterns for each implant, with model B demonstrating better force distribution on the bone despite no significance.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>Forces over 520 N (high postoperative rehabilitation force) could hinder bone integration with prostheses due to excessive micromotion. Conversely, forces around 220 N (preconditioning loading force) are considered safe for prosthesis stability even with low bone density. These insights may caution against using stemless implants when bone density is low, and help guide clinical decisions on the duration of rehabilitation and sling use after stemless arthroplasty.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The biomechanical assessment of two stemless shoulder arthroplasty prostheses in uniformly poor-quality bone mineral density cadaveric specimens\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Stemless shoulder arthroplasty offers several advantages, such as preserving bone stock and reducing periprosthetic fracture risk. However, implant motion can deter osteointegration and increase bone resorption, where micromotion less than 0.150 mm is crucial for bony ingrowth and vital to the success of the implant. The interaction between the implant and the metaphyseal bone and its effects on stability remains unclear. Therefore, this cadaveric study aims to assess the immediate stability of two stemless prostheses in low bone density specimens.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty cadaveric shoulders were used to compare the stability of two stemless shoulder implants by Zimmer-Biomet (model A) and Exactech (model B), subjected to loads of 220 N, 520 N, and 820 N to assess strain and micromotion.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Micromotion at 220 N load was 0.061 ± 0.080 mm and 0.053 ± 0.050 mm, and at 520 N load, 0.279 ± 0.37 mm and 0.311 ± 0.35 mm for models A and B, respectively. The estimated mean force required to achieve a 150 μm micromotion was 356 ± 116 N and 315 ± 61 N for models A and B, respectively. Motion analysis revealed distinct movement patterns for each implant, with model B demonstrating better force distribution on the bone despite no significance.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>Forces over 520 N (high postoperative rehabilitation force) could hinder bone integration with prostheses due to excessive micromotion. Conversely, forces around 220 N (preconditioning loading force) are considered safe for prosthesis stability even with low bone density. These insights may caution against using stemless implants when bone density is low, and help guide clinical decisions on the duration of rehabilitation and sling use after stemless arthroplasty.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Biomechanics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Biomechanics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003324001785\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003324001785","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景无茎肩关节置换术具有多种优势,如保留骨量和降低假体周围骨折风险。然而,植入体的移动会阻碍骨整合并增加骨吸收,而小于 0.150 mm 的微动对骨的生长至关重要,也是植入体成功的关键。目前还不清楚种植体与骺端骨之间的相互作用及其对稳定性的影响。因此,这项尸体研究旨在评估两种无茎假体在低骨密度标本中的即时稳定性。方法用20个尸体肩部比较Zimmer-Biomet(A型)和Exactech(B型)两种无茎肩部假体的稳定性,分别承受220 N、520 N和820 N的负荷,以评估应变和微动。结果模型 A 和模型 B 在 220 N 负荷下的微动分别为 0.061 ± 0.080 mm 和 0.053 ± 0.050 mm,在 520 N 负荷下的微动分别为 0.279 ± 0.37 mm 和 0.311 ± 0.35 mm。模型 A 和 B 实现 150 μm 微动所需的估计平均力分别为 356 ± 116 N 和 315 ± 61 N。运动分析表明,每种假体都有不同的运动模式,模型 B 在骨上的力分布更好,尽管没有显著性。相反,即使骨密度较低,220 N左右的力量(预处理加载力)对假体的稳定性也是安全的。这些见解可提醒人们在骨密度较低时不要使用无茎假体,并有助于指导临床决定无茎假体植入术后康复和使用吊带的持续时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The biomechanical assessment of two stemless shoulder arthroplasty prostheses in uniformly poor-quality bone mineral density cadaveric specimens

Background

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty offers several advantages, such as preserving bone stock and reducing periprosthetic fracture risk. However, implant motion can deter osteointegration and increase bone resorption, where micromotion less than 0.150 mm is crucial for bony ingrowth and vital to the success of the implant. The interaction between the implant and the metaphyseal bone and its effects on stability remains unclear. Therefore, this cadaveric study aims to assess the immediate stability of two stemless prostheses in low bone density specimens.

Methods

Twenty cadaveric shoulders were used to compare the stability of two stemless shoulder implants by Zimmer-Biomet (model A) and Exactech (model B), subjected to loads of 220 N, 520 N, and 820 N to assess strain and micromotion.

Findings

Micromotion at 220 N load was 0.061 ± 0.080 mm and 0.053 ± 0.050 mm, and at 520 N load, 0.279 ± 0.37 mm and 0.311 ± 0.35 mm for models A and B, respectively. The estimated mean force required to achieve a 150 μm micromotion was 356 ± 116 N and 315 ± 61 N for models A and B, respectively. Motion analysis revealed distinct movement patterns for each implant, with model B demonstrating better force distribution on the bone despite no significance.

Interpretation

Forces over 520 N (high postoperative rehabilitation force) could hinder bone integration with prostheses due to excessive micromotion. Conversely, forces around 220 N (preconditioning loading force) are considered safe for prosthesis stability even with low bone density. These insights may caution against using stemless implants when bone density is low, and help guide clinical decisions on the duration of rehabilitation and sling use after stemless arthroplasty.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Biomechanics
Clinical Biomechanics 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
189
审稿时长
12.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Biomechanics is an international multidisciplinary journal of biomechanics with a focus on medical and clinical applications of new knowledge in the field. The science of biomechanics helps explain the causes of cell, tissue, organ and body system disorders, and supports clinicians in the diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of treatment methods and technologies. Clinical Biomechanics aims to strengthen the links between laboratory and clinic by publishing cutting-edge biomechanics research which helps to explain the causes of injury and disease, and which provides evidence contributing to improved clinical management. A rigorous peer review system is employed and every attempt is made to process and publish top-quality papers promptly. Clinical Biomechanics explores all facets of body system, organ, tissue and cell biomechanics, with an emphasis on medical and clinical applications of the basic science aspects. The role of basic science is therefore recognized in a medical or clinical context. The readership of the journal closely reflects its multi-disciplinary contents, being a balance of scientists, engineers and clinicians. The contents are in the form of research papers, brief reports, review papers and correspondence, whilst special interest issues and supplements are published from time to time. Disciplines covered include biomechanics and mechanobiology at all scales, bioengineering and use of tissue engineering and biomaterials for clinical applications, biophysics, as well as biomechanical aspects of medical robotics, ergonomics, physical and occupational therapeutics and rehabilitation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信