A Case of Implant Failure in Partial Wrist Fusion Applying Magnesium-Based Headless Bone Screws.

This article presents a case of implant failure resulting in mechanical instability of a scaphotrapezotrapezoideal arthrodesis using magnesium-based headless bone screws. During revision surgery osteolysis surrounding the screws was observed as well as degraded screw threads already in existence at 6 weeks after implantation. The supposed osseous integration attributed to magnesium-based screws could not be reproduced in this particular case. Thus, it can be reasoned that the use of magnesium-based screws for partial wrist arthrodesis cannot be encouraged, at least not in dual use.

Dependence of model-based RSA accuracy on higher and lower implant surface model quality.

BACKGROUND: Model-based Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis (MBRSA) allows the accurate in vivo measurement of the relative motion between an implant and the surrounding bone (migration), using pose-estimation algorithms and three dimensional geometric surface models of the implant. The goal of this study was thus to investigate the effect of surface model resolution on the accuracy of the MBRSA method. METHODS: Four different implant geometries (knee femoral and tibial components, and two different hip stems) were investigated, for each of which two reversed engineering (RE) models of differing spatial digitizing resolution were generated. Accuracy of implant migration measurement using MBRSA was assessed in dependence on surface model resolution using an experimental phantom-model set up. RESULTS: When using the lower quality RE models, the worst bias observed ranged from -0.048 to 0.037 mm, and -0.057 to 0.078 deg for translation and rotation respectively. For higher quality reverse engineering models, bias ranged from -0.042 to 0.048 mm, and -0.449 to 0.029 deg. The pair-wise comparisons of digitizing resolution (higher vs. lower quality) within the different implant type revealed significant differences only for the hip stems (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The data suggest that the application of lower resolution RE models for MBRSA is a viable alternative method for the in vivo measurement of implant migration, in particular for implants with non symmetrical geometries (total knee arthroplasty). Implants with larger length to width aspect ratio (total hip arthroplasty) may require high resolution RE models in order to achieve acceptable accuracy. Conversely, for some axis the bias for translation are clearly worse for translation, and are marginally better for rotations using the lower resolution RE models instead of the higher ones. However, performed box plots ranges were well within what has been reported in the literature. The observed lower accuracy and precision of the measurements for hip stem components for rotations about the superior-inferior direction is presumably the result of the nature of the MBRSA method. This well known effect within MBRSA for rotations about the axis of symmetry of axially-symmetric objects do not change the contour of the projected image to as large a degree as motion about a non-symmetric axes. It is not possible to detected this small motion as accurately using pose-estimation methods. This may affect the "higher" accuracy for the applied lower resolution RE models.

Experimental analysis of Model-Based Roentgen Stereophotogrammetric Analysis (MBRSA) on four typical prosthesis components.

Classical marker-based roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) is an accurate method of measuring in vivo implant migration. A disadvantage of the method is the necessity of placing tantalum markers on the implant, which constitutes additional manufacturing and certification effort. Model-based RSA (MBRSA) is a method by which pose-estimation of geometric surface-models of the implant is used to detect implant migration. The placement of prosthesis markers is thus no longer necessary. The accuracy of the pose-estimation algorithms used depends on the geometry of the prosthesis as well as the accuracy of the surface models used. The goal of this study was thus to evaluate the experimental accuracy and precision of the MBRSA method for four different, but typical prosthesis geometries, that are commonly implanted. Is there a relationship existing between the accuracy of MBRSA and prosthesis geometries? Four different prosthesis geometries were investigated: one femoral and one tibial total knee arthroplasty (TKA) component and two different femoral stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) components. An experimental phantom model was used to simulate two different implant migration protocols, whereby the implant was moved relative to the surrounding bone (relative prosthesis-bone motion (RM)), or, similar to the double-repeated measures performed to assess accuracy clinically, both the prosthesis and the surrounding bone model (zero relative prosthesis-bone motion (ZRM)) were moved. Motions were performed about three translational and three rotational axes, respectively. The maximum 95% confidence interval (CI) for MBRSA of all four prosthesis investigated was better than -0.034 to 0.107 mm for in-plane and -0.217 to 0.069 mm for out-of-plane translation, and from -0.038 deg to 0.162 deg for in-plane and from -1.316 deg to 0.071 deg for out-of-plane rotation, with no clear differences between the ZRM and RM protocols observed. Accuracy in translation was similar between TKA and THA components, whereas rotational accuracy about the long axis of the hip stem THA components was worse than the TKA components. The data suggest that accuracy and precision of MBRSA seem to be equivalent to the classical marker-based RSA method, at least for the nonsymmetric implant geometries investigated in this study. The model-based method thus allows the accurate measurement of implant migration without requiring prosthesis markers, and thus presents new opportunities for measuring implant migration where financial or geometric considerations of marker placement have thus far been prohibitive factors.

Comparison of the model-based and marker-based roentgen stereophotogrammetry methods in a typical clinical setting.

Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) is an established method for the precise measurement of implant migration. Model-based RSA (MBRSA) alleviates the need to attach tantalum markers to the prosthesis, which has prevented wider application of RSA. The goal of this study was to investigate the equivalence of both methods for the clinical measurement of implant migration. Tibial component migration was measured in 24 patients using both methods from the same set of radiographs. The maximum agreement interval, mean (+/-2 standard deviations), of the difference between both methods was modest, at 0.002 mm (0.144 mm) and -0.078 degrees (0.782 degrees ). The results suggest that MBRSA can be used interchangeably with the marker-based method and that the advantages of MBRSA do not come at the cost of a loss in accuracy.

Accuracy of model-based RSA contour reduction in a typical clinical application.

Marker-based roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) is an accurate method for measuring in vivo implant migration, which requires attachment of tantalum markers to the implant. Model-based RSA allows migration measurement without implant markers; digital pose estimation, which can be thought of as casting a shadow of a surface model of the implant into the stereoradiographs, is used instead. The number of surface models required in a given clinical study depends on the number of implanted sizes and design variations of prostheses. Contour selection can be used to limit pose estimation to areas of the prosthesis that do not vary with design, reducing the number of surface models required. The effect of contour reduction on the accuracy of the model-based method was investigated using three different contour selection schemes on tibial components in 24 patients at 3 and 6 month followup. The agreement interval (mean +/- 2 standard deviations), which bounds the differences between the marker-based and model-based methods with contour reduction was smaller than -0.028 +/- 0.254 mm. The data suggest that contour reduction does not result in unacceptable loss of model-based RSA accuracy, and that the model-based method can be used interchangeably with the marker-based method for measuring tibial component migration.

In vitro simulation of stance phase gait part I: Model verification.

An in vitro simulator was developed to reproduce the kinematics and kinetics of stance phase gait on cadaver foot specimens. Ground reaction force was applied by a tilting angle- and force-controlled translation stage upon which a pressure measuring platform was mounted; tibial rotation was reproduced by a servomotor. Force was applied to nine tendons of the foot flexor and extensor muscle groups, and three-dimensional hind- and forefoot motion was measured. The model was verified based on in vivo kinematic and kinetic measurements. It was found to be in good general agreement with some exceptions which include a slightly more lateral gait line.

In vitro simulation of stance phase gait part II: Simulated anterior tibial tendon dysfunction and potential compensation.

The diagnosis of anterior tibial tendon tear is often missed. The ability of the remaining ankle extensor muscles to compensate for lost anterior tibial force was thus investigated. The effect of tibialis anterior deficiency on tarsal bone motion and plantar pressure was measured during in vitro simulated stance phase gait on eight cadaver specimens. Increased internal rotation, plantarflexion, and inversion of the talus and calcaneus (p < or = .001), as well as significant reductions of plantar pressure on the heel (p < or = .04) were observed during the first half of the stance phase. The observed drop foot was partly compensated by increased extensor muscle force.