Influence of the positioning of a cementless glenoid prosthesis on its interface micromotions

Abstract

The positioning of the glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty is complicated by the limited view during operation. Malalignment and/or motion of the glenoid component with respect to the bone can be a cause of, or contribute to, failure of the implant. The aim of this paper is to determine the effect of the positioning of a cementless glenoid component on the micromotions between the implant and the bone during normal loading after surgery. For this study a three-dimensional finite element model of a complete scapula with a cementless glenoid component was used. In total, eight positions of the upper arm in both abduction and anteflexion were chosen to represent the patient's arm movement post-operatively. A previously published musculoskeletal model was used to determine the joint and muscle forces on the scapula with implant in each arm position. Five different alignments of the glenoid component (neutral, anterior, inferior, posterior, and superior inclinations), two different implantation depths (‘optimal’ and ‘deeper’ implantations), and two bone qualities (healthy and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) bone) were considered. Inclinations of 10° with respect to a neutral alignment did not affect the overall interface micromotions in the optimal implantation depth. However, when the implantation depth was 3 mm deeper, anterior and inferior inclinations were more favourable than a neutral alignment and other inclinations. Micromotions in RA bone were always larger than in healthy bone.

Keywords

glenoid prosthesis bone implant interface micromotions finite elements

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bohsali

K. I.

Wirth

M. A.

Rockwood

C. A.

‘Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty.’

J. Bone Jt Surg. Am. 88 (10) (2006): 2279–2292

Williams

G. R.

Abboud

J. A.

‘Total shoulder arthroplasty: Glenoid component design.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14 (1, Suppl.) (2005): S122-S128.

Torchia

M. E.

Cofield

R. H.

Settergren

C. R.

‘Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: Long-term results.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 6 (6) (1997): 495–505

Cofield

R. H.

‘Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis.’

J. Bone Jt Surg. Am. 66 (6) (1984): 899–906

Norris

B. L.

Lachiewicz

P. F.

‘Modern cement technique and the survivorship of total shoulder arthroplasty.’

Clin. Orthop. Related Res. 328 (1996): 76–85

Wallace

A. L.

Phillips

R. L.

MacDougal

G. A.

Walsh

W. R.

Sonnabend

D. H.

‘Resurfacing of the glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty. A comparison, at a mean of five years, of prostheses inserted with and without cement.’

J. Bone Jt Surg. Am. 81 (4) (1999): 5180–5187

Boileau

Avidor

Krishnan

S. G.

Walch

Kempf

J. F.

Mole

‘Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: A prospective, double-blind, randomized study.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 11 (2002): 351–359

Gupta

van der Helm

F. C. T.

van Keulen

‘The possibilities of uncemented glenoid component — a finite element study.’

Clin. Biomechanics 19 (3) (2004): 292–302

Cochran

D. L.

Schenk

R. K.

Lussi

Higginbottom

F. L.

Buser

‘Bone response to unloaded and loaded titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: A histometric study in the canine mandible.’

J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 40 (1) (1998): 1–11

10.

Simmons

C. A.

Valiquette

Pilliar

R. M.

‘Osseointegration of sintered porous-surfaced and plasma spray-coated implants: An animal model study of early postimplantation healing response and mechanical stability.’

J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 47 (2) (2003): 127–138

11.

Simon

Augat

Ignatius

Claes

‘Influence of the stiffness bone defect implants on the mechanical conditions at the interface — a finite element analysis with contact.’

J. Biomechanics 36 (8) (2003): 1079–1086

12.

Hasan

S. S.

Leith

J. M.

Campbell

Kapil

Smith

K. L.

Matsen

F. A.

III

‘Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 11 (2002): 431–441

13.

Hopkins

A. R.

Hansen

U. N.

Amis

A. A.

Emery

‘The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 13 (2004): 668–675

14.

Oosterom

Rozing

P. M.

Bersee

H. E. N.

‘Effect of glenoid component inclination on its fixation and humeral head subluxation in total shoulder arthroplasty.’

Clin. Biomechanics 19 (2004): 1000–1008

15.

De Leest

Rozing

P. M.

Rozendaal

L. A.

Van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘Influence of glenohumeral prosthesis geometry and placement on shoulder muscle forces.’

Clin. Orthop. Related Res. 330 (1) (1996): 222–233

16.

Kaptein

B. L.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘Estimating muscle attachment contours by transforming geometrical bone models.’

J. Biomechanics 37 (2004): 263–273

17.

Veeger

H. E. J.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

van der Woude

L. V.H.

Pronk

G. M.

Rozendal

R. H.

‘Inertia and muscle contraction parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the shoulder mechanism.’

J. Biomechanics 24 (1991): 615–629

18.

Rice

J. C.

Cowin

S. C.

Bowman

J. A.

‘On the dependence of the elasticity and strength of cancellous bone on apparent density.’

J. Biomechanics 21 (2) (1988): 155–168

19.

Schaffler

M. B.

Burr

D. B.

‘Stiffness of compact bone: Effects of porosity and density.’

J. Biomechanics 21 (1) (1988): 13–16

20.

Dalstra

Frich

L. H.

Sneppen

‘The loss of load-bearing capability in rheumatoid glenoids.’ In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the European Society of Biomechanics, 1996, p. 178 (Katholieke Universität Leuven Leuven).

21.

The GNU triangulated surface library 2006, available from http://gts.sourceforge.net/.

22.

Frey

J. P.

Borouchaki

‘Geometric surface mesh optimization.’

Computing Visualization Sci. 1 (1998): 113–121

23.

Taubin

‘A signal processing approach to fair surface design.’ In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 1995, pp. 351–358 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).

24.

Zhang

Ahn

P. B.

Fitzpatrick

D. C.

Heiner

A. D.

Poggie

R. A.

Brown

T. D.

‘Interfacial frictional behavior: Cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum biomaterial.’

J. Musculoskeletal Res. 3 (4) (1999): 245–251

25.

Grant

J. A.

Bishop

N. E.

Gotzen

Sprecher

Honl

Morlock

M. M.

‘Artificial composite bone as a model of human trabecular bone: The implant bone interface.’

J. Biomechanics 40 (5) (2007): 1158–1154

26.

Botha

C. P.

Techniques and software architectures for medical visualisation and image processing PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2005.

27.

Van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘A finite element musculoskeletal model of the shoulder mechanism.’

J. Biomechanics 27 (1994): 551–569

28.

Ramamurti

B. S.

Orr

T. E.

Bragdon

C. R.

Lowenstein

J. D.

Jasty

Harris

W. H.

‘Factors influencing stability at the interface between a porous surface and cancellous bone: A finite element analysis of a canine in vivo micromotion experiment.’

J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 36 (1997): 274–280

29.

Pilliar

R. M.

Lee

J. M.

Maniatopoulos

‘Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants.’

Clin. Orthop. Related Res. 208 (1986): 108–113

30.

Vandamme

Naert

Geris

Vander Sloten

Puers

Duyck

‘The effect of micro-motion on the tissue response around immediately loaded roughened titanium implants in the rabbit.’

Eur. J. Oral Sci. 115 (1) (2007): 21–29

31.

Rosenberg

Neumann

Modi

Mersich

I. J.

Wallace

A. W.

‘Improvements in survival of the uncemented Nottingham total shoulder prosthesis: A prospective comparative study.’

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 8 (2007): 76

32.

Iannotti

J. P.

Spencer

E. E.

Winter

Deffenbaugh

Williams

‘Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14 (1, Suppl.) (2005): 111S-121S.