Finite-Element Analysis of Stress on the Proximal Tibia After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Because the indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are limited, few patients have undergone the procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to decide the acceptable range of variation in the details of UKA on the basis of the available clinical data. The objective of this study was to identify factors that affect the distribution of stress on the proximal tibia after UKA. METHODS: Two-dimensional finite-element analysis of the proximal tibia was used to assess four factors: 1) two types of implants-all ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) and metal-backed implants, 2) postoperative alignment, 3) coverage of tibial bone, 4) level of the tibial osteotomy. RESULTS: In cases of varus alignment, high stress values and large areas of deformation were observed on and beneath the implant. In cases of valgus alignment, stress was concentrated at the lateral portion of tibial tray. In comparison with the standard model, stress concentration was greater at the medial edge of the medial condyle in a narrow-coverage model. Stress distribution for the low-osteotomy-level model did not differ markedly differ from that for the standard model. Stress distribution was better for metal-backed implants than for UHMWPE implants. CONCLUSIONS: Proper postoperative alignment must be achieved in UKA. The osteotomy level should be set at the cancellous bone close to the joint line, and preservation of bone stock should be maximized.

Three-Dimensional Finite Analysis of the Optimal Alignment of the Tibial Implant in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has become more common because of its good outcomes, several complications have been reported. Tibial implant alignment, an important cause of such complications, has been investigated; however, the optimal alignment of the tibial implant has not been determined. This study used 3-dimensional finite element analysis to investigate changes in stress distribution in the proximal tibia after UKA at multiple tibial implant alignments. METHODS: A 3-dimensional finite element model was created with CT digital imaging and communications in medicine (CT-DICOM) data from a medial osteoarthritic knee. Change in stress distribution of the tibial implant alignment on the coronal plane (middle position, varus 5°, valgus 5°) and sagittal plane (0°, 5°, 10°) under conditions of a loose boundary between implant and bone and no loosening was analyzed with 3-dimensional finite analysis. RESULTS: In the absence of loosening, the stress distribution was high at the lateral rim of the subchondral bone in the varus alignment model, and the high stress distribution moved from the anterior to the posterior position with posterior tilting from 0° to 10°. With loosening, the stress distribution was high at the proximal tibial medial cortex in the valgus alignment model. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce UKA complications, the present findings indicate that the optimal alignment of the tibial implant is at the middle position on the coronal plane, with a posterior inclination similar to the original inclination on the sagittal plane.