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.

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.