Finite element analysis of the effect of knee movable unicompartmental prosthesis insertion shape and mounting position on stress distribution in the knee joint after replacement.
10.7507/1001-5515.202202007
- Author:
Mingxin ZHAO
1
;
Yuan GUO
1
;
Changjiang WANG
2
;
Xushu ZHANG
1
;
Binping JI
3
;
Kai ZHANG
3
;
Dongdong HE
1
Author Information
1. College of Biomedical Engineering, Taiyuan University of Technology, Jinzhong, Shanxi 030600, P. R. China.
2. University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, UK.
3. Shanxi HuaJin orthopaedic hospital, Taiyuan 030400, P. R. China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Finite element analysis;
Insert;
Prosthesis;
Replacement position;
Unicompartmental knee replacement
- MeSH:
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods*;
Biomechanical Phenomena;
Finite Element Analysis;
Humans;
Knee Joint/surgery*;
Knee Prosthesis;
Tibia/surgery*
- From:
Journal of Biomedical Engineering
2022;39(4):660-671
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
In unicompartmental replacement surgery, there are a wide variety of commercially available unicompartmental prostheses, and the consistency of the contact surface between the common liner and the femoral prosthesis could impact the stress distribution in the knee after replacement in different ways. Medial tibial plateau fracture and liner dislocation are two common forms of failure after unicompartmental replacement. One of the reasons is the mismatch in the mounting position of the unicompartmental prosthesis in the knee joint, which may lead to failure. Therefore, this paper focuses on the influence of the shape of the contact surface between the liner and the femoral prosthesis and the mounting position of the unicompartmental prosthesis on the stress distribution in the knee joint after replacement. Firstly, a finite element model of the normal human knee joint was established, and the validity of the model was verified by both stress and displacement. Secondly, two different shapes of padded knee prosthesis models (type A and type B) were developed to simulate and analyze the stress distribution in the knee joint under single-leg stance with five internal or external rotation mounting positions of the two pads. The results showed that under a 1 kN axial load, the peak contact pressure of the liner, the peak ACL equivalent force, and the peak contact pressure of the lateral meniscus were smaller for type A than for type B. The liner displacement, peak contact pressure of the liner, peak tibial equivalent force, and peak ACL equivalent force were the smallest for type A at 3° of internal rotation in all five internal or external rotation mounting positions. For unicompartmental replacement, it is recommended that the choice of type A or type B liner for prosthetic internal rotation up to 6° should be combined with other factors of the patient for comprehensive analysis. In conclusion, the results of this paper may reduce the risk of liner dislocation and medial tibial plateau fracture after unicompartmental replacement, providing a biomechanical reference for unicompartmental prosthesis design.
