Abstract

AbstractIntroductionIn cementless UKR, early post-operative tibial fractures are 7x more common in very small tibias. A smaller keel has been shown to reduce this fracture risk, but its effect on fixation is unassessed. This mechanical study assesses the effect of keel interference and size on sagittal micromotion of the tibial component in physiological loading positions.MethodA high-resolution Digital Image Correlation setup was developed and validated to an accuracy of 50 micrometres. Variants of tibial components were 3D-printed: standard, no-interference, no-keel, and a new small keel. Components were implanted into bone-analogue foam which was machined to a CT-reconstructed small tibia, using surgical technique. Tibias were loaded to 200N in physiological loading positions: 8mm (step-up) and 15mm (lunge) posterior to midpoint, and micromotion was assessed.ResultsIn all tests, anterior lift-off was the largest micromotion observed. In ‘step-up’, a standard keel moved more than the no-interference and no-keel variants (340μm-vs-63μm-vs-30μm, p=0.002). In ‘lunge’ loading, the no-interference and no-keel variants moved more than the standard (826μm-vs-1003μm-vs-521μm, p=0.039).The small keel experienced less micromotion in ‘step-up’ (245μm-vs-340μm p=0.233, overall p=0.009) and ‘lunge’ (378μm-vs-521μm p=0.265, overall p=0.006) than the standard keel.ConclusionThe keel protects against large tibial micromotion during lunge movement. Counterintuitively, interference increases micromotion during step-up movement, likely due to implant pivoting around the bone-keel interface. Results suggest patients should be advised against lunge movements early post-operatively. The new smaller keel fixes similarly or better than the standard keel, making it viable for replacing the standard keel to potentially reduce fracture risk.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call