A novel computational workflow to holistically assess total knee arthroplasty biomechanics identifies subject-specific effects of joint mechanics on implant fixation.

Computational studies of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often focus on either joint mechanics (kinematics and forces) or implant fixation mechanics. However, such disconnect between joint and fixation mechanics hinders our understanding of overall TKA biomechanical function by preventing identification of key relationships between these two levels of TKA mechanics. We developed a computational workflow to holistically assess TKA biomechanics by integrating musculoskeletal and finite element (FE) models. For our initial study using the workflow, we investigated how tibiofemoral contact mechanics affected the risk of failure due to debonding at the implant-cement interface using the four available subjects from the Grand Challenge Competitions to Predict In Vivo Knee Loads. We used a musculoskeletal model with a 12 degrees-of-freedom knee joint to simulate the stance phase of gait for each subject. The computed tibiofemoral joint forces at each node in contact were direct inputs to FE simulations of the same subjects. We found that the peak risk of failure did not coincide with the peak joint forces or the extreme tibiofemoral contact positions. Moreover, despite the consistency of joint forces across subjects, we observed important variability in the profile of the risk of failure during gait. Thus, by a combined evaluation of the joint and implant fixation mechanics of TKA, we could identify subject-specific effects of joint kinematics and forces on implant fixation that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. We intend to apply our workflow to evaluate the impact of implant alignment and design on TKA biomechanics.

Moment arms of the coracobrachialis and short head of biceps following a Latarjet procedure: a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure transfers the coracoid process to the anterior glenoid. This prevents recurrent anterior humeral dislocation but alters the origins of the coracobrachialis (CBR) and short head of the biceps (SHB). The impact of this alteration on the moment arms of these muscles has not been examined. METHODS: The Newcastle Shoulder Model was updated with 15 healthy cadaveric bone models to create customized shoulder models. The CBR and SHB muscles were attached to the anterior glenoid via an elliptical wrapping object. Muscle moment arms were calculated for abduction, forward flexion, scapular plane elevation, and internal rotation with 20° and 90° of abduction. Statistical comparison of moment arms between native and Latarjet shoulders was performed using spm1D. RESULTS: By transferring the origins of the CBR and SHB to the anterior glenoid, both muscles had extension moment arms during glenohumeral elevation in the coronal, sagittal, and scapular planes. Their average moment arms during abduction (-30.4 ± 3.2 mm for CBR and -29.8 ± 3.0 mm for SHB) and forward flexion (-26.0 ± 3.1 mm for CBR and -26.2 ± 3.2 mm for SHB) suggested that their role after the Latarjet procedure changed compared with their role in the native shoulder (P < .001). At higher abduction levels, both the muscles had higher internal rotation moment arms compared with the native shoulder. CONCLUSION: The Latarjet procedure affected the moment arms of the CBR and SHB. Both muscles had increased extension and internal rotation moment arms at higher degrees of elevation compared with the native shoulders. This finding suggests that these muscles act as dynamic stabilizers after the Latarjet procedure.

Characterizing moment arms of the coracobrachialis and short head of biceps in native shoulders and after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty during elevation and rotation: a modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) alters the line of action of muscles around the glenohumeral joint. The effects of these changes have been well characterized for the deltoid, but there is limited information regarding the biomechanical changes to the coracobrachialis (CBR) and short head of biceps (SHB). In this biomechanical study, we investigated the changes to the moment arms of the CBR and SHB due to RTSA using a computational model of the shoulder. METHODS: The Newcastle Shoulder Model, a pre-validated upper-extremity musculoskeletal model, was used for this study. The Newcastle Shoulder Model was modified with bone geometries obtained from 3-dimensional reconstructions of 15 nondiseased shoulders, constituting the native shoulder group. The Delta XTEND prosthesis, with a glenosphere diameter of 38 mm and polyethylene thickness of 6 mm, was virtually implanted in all the models, creating the RTSA group. Moment arms were measured using the tendon excursion method, and muscle length was calculated as the distance between the muscle's origin and insertion points. These values were measured during 0°-150° of abduction, forward flexion, scapular-plane elevation, and -90° to 60° of external rotation-internal rotation with the arm at 20° and 90° of abduction. Statistical comparisons between the native and RTSA groups were analyzed using 1-dimensional statistical parametric mapping (spm1D). RESULTS: Forward flexion moment arms showed the greatest increase between the RTSA group (CBR, 25.3 ± 4.7 mm; SHB, 24.7 ± 4.5 mm) and native group (CBR, 9.6 ± 5.2 mm; SHB, 10.2 ± 5.2 mm). The CBR and SHB were longer in the RTSA group by maximum values of 15% and 7%, respectively. Both muscles had larger abduction moment arms in the RTSA group (CBR, 20.9 ± 4.3 mm; SHB, 21.9 ± 4.3 mm) compared with the native group (CBR, 19.6 ± 6.6 mm; SHB, 20.0 ± 5.7 mm). Abduction moment arms occurred at lower abduction angles in the RTSA group (CBR, 50°; SHB, 45°) than in the native group (CBR, 90°; SHB, 85°). In the RTSA group, both muscles had elevation moment arms until 25° of scapular-plane elevation motion, whereas in the native group, the muscles only had depression moment arms. Both muscles had small rotational moment arms that were significantly different between RTSA and native shoulders during different ranges of motion. CONCLUSION: Significant increases in elevation moment arms for the CBR and SHB were observed in RTSA shoulders; these increases were most pronounced during abduction and forward elevation motions. RTSA also increased the lengths of these muscles.

Development of a framework to assess the biomechanical impact of reverse shoulder arthroplasty placement modifications.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics can be improved by modifying the placement of prosthesis. Biomechanical studies have quantified the impact of placement modifications on the mobility and stability of the reverse shoulder. While these studies have provided detailed insights, direct comparisons between their finding are obfuscated by their use of differing methodologies. The aim of our study was to develop an assessment framework which used musculoskeletal simulations to consistently evaluate the biomechanics of various placement modifications. We conducted musculoskeletal simulations of humeral elevations and rotations using 15 reverse shoulder models. For each model, these simulations were conducted for a reference configuration of the prosthesis, established using surgical guidelines, and 34 modified configurations, which were based on commonplace adaptations to the placement of the glenosphere and humeral tray. The effect of each modified configuration on deltoid elongation, deltoid moment arm (DMA), joint stability, and impingement-free range of motion (IFROM) was determined relative to the reference configuration. We found that 16 of the 34 modified placements had an overall beneficial impact on reverse shoulder biomechanics. Within this subset, we identified two biomechanical trade-offs. First, there is an antagonistic relationship between IFROM and both the DMA and joint stability. Second, functional requirements differ between humeral elevations and rotations. Furthermore, we found that posteromedial translation of the humeral tray had the most beneficial impact on joint stability and inferior translation of the glenosphere had the most beneficial impact on IFROM and DMA.

Effect of varus alignment on the bone-implant interaction of a cementless tibial baseplate during gait.

Component alignment in total knee arthroplasty is a determining factor for implant longevity. Mechanical alignment, which provides balanced load transfer, is the most common alignment strategy. However, a retrospective review found that varus alignment, which could lead to unbalanced loading, can happen in up to 18% of tibial baseplates. This may be particularly burdensome for cementless tibial baseplates, which require low bone-implant micromotion and avoidance of bone overload to obtain bone ingrowth. Our aim was to assess the effect of varus alignment on the bone-implant interaction of cementless baseplates. We virtually implanted 11 patients with knee OA with a modern cementless tibial baseplate in mechanical alignment and in 2° of tibial varus alignment. We performed finite element simulations throughout gait, with loading conditions derived from literature. Throughout the stance phase, varus alignment had greater micromotion and percentage of bone volume at risk of failure than mechanical alignment. At mid-stance, when the most critical conditions occurred, the average increase in peak micromotion and amount of bone at risk of failure due to varus alignment were 79% and 59%, respectively. Varus alignment also resulted in the decrease of the surface area with micromotion compatible with bone ingrowth. However, for both alignments, this surface area was larger than the average area of ingrowth reported for well-fixed implants retrieved post-mortem. Our findings suggest that small varus deviations from mechanical alignment can adversely impact the biomechanics of the bone-implant interaction for cementless tibial baseplates during gait; however, the clinical implications of such changes remain unclear.

Effect of humeral tray placement on impingement-free range of motion and muscle moment arms in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that onlay humeral tray placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty can affect impingement and muscle functionality. This study investigates biomechanical changes to the reversed shoulder using a variety of tray positional configurations. METHODS: The reconstructed scapula and humerus from 12 CT scans were used to customise a 3D biomechanical model of the shoulder. Each model underwent virtual RSA surgery using a commercially available prosthesis that was reconstructed from an explant. 17 tray positions were tested: the default location with no offset and 16 offset locations (2.5 and 5 mm radial offsets over 45° circumferential intervals). Impingement and muscle moment arms were measured during three standardised activities, and impingement was measured during an activity of daily living. FINDINGS: Offset direction was found to have an effect (P < 0.05) on extra-articular impingement and muscle moment arms for all activities; whereas, offset distance did not (P > 0.05). Overall, impingement-free range of motion was maximised using a posterolateral tray offset and muscle moment arms were maximised using a medial tray offset. An antagonistic relationship between changes to impingement and muscle moment arms due to tray placement was identified and, consequently, the simultaneous maximisation of both outcome measures was not possible. INTERPRETATION: The functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be improved by altering onlay humeral tray placement. Due to the antagonistic relationship between the impingement and muscle moment arms, placement of the tray should be guided by patient-specific characteristics.