Design of Anatomical Population-Based and Patient-Specific Radial Head Implants.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to characterize the morphology of the radial head and design population-based anatomical and patient-specific radial head implants. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) images of 50 normal cadaveric upper extremities (34 male, 16 female) were obtained using a 64-slice CT scanner. Surface models were ellipse-fitted and characterized. Using an intersurface distance mapping approach, the surface geometry of the population-based anatomical design (PB-An), 3 distinct patient-specific designs, and an existing axisymmetrical implant (Com-Axi) were compared with the native radial head and the overall surface mismatch was measured. RESULTS: Morphological analysis indicated that the diameters of the outer and rim ellipses were correlated. The mean mismatch for the existing commercially available axisymmetrical implants was 0.5 ± 0.1 mm.The PB-An implants showed significantly reduced surface mismatch (0.4 ± 0.2 mm). The PS-An implant using 82 parameters in its design (0.1 ± 0.0 mm), had the lowest mean surface mismatch of any of the implants investigated. CONCLUSIONS: The mean surface mismatch of radial head implants may be reduced using reverse engineering techniques to determine the required parameters for both population-based and patient-specific implant designs. Whether there is a significant clinical advantage of a more anatomically shaped radial head implant requires additional study. More anatomical implant shapes rely on a surgical technique to accurately position these implants during surgery. It is unclear if this can be achieved clinically using conventional techniques or whether computer-assisted surgery will be required to realize the potential advantages of a more anatomical implant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study characterized the morphology of the radial head with implications for population-based anatomical implants and patient-specific implants. The overall design of each implant was quantitatively compared with the native radial head. This study has implications for the design of patient-specific/anatomical implants and compares their use with commercially available generic implants.

Effect of Radial Head Implant Shape on Radiocapitellar Joint Congruency.

PURPOSE: Radial head arthroplasty is indicated in displaced fractures in which comminution precludes successful internal fixation. Many types of radial head implants have been developed varying in material, methods of fixation, and degrees of modularity and geometry. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of radial head implant shape on radiocapitellar joint congruency. METHODS: Joint congruency was quantified in 7 cadaveric specimens employing a registration and inter-surface distance algorithm and 3-dimensional models obtained using computed tomography. Forearm rotation was simulated after computer-guided implantation of an axisymmetric radial head, a population-based quasi-anatomic radial head implant, and a reverse-engineered anatomic radial head implant. Inter-surface distances were measured to investigate the relative position of the radial head implant and displayed on 3-dimensional color-contour maps. Surface area was measured for inter-surface distances (1.5 mm) and compared for each radial head geometry. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in the contact surface area between radial head implants during active or passive forearm rotation. The joint was more congruent (larger contact surface area) during active forearm rotation compared with passive forearm rotation. CONCLUSIONS: This study investigated the effect of implant geometry on the radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics by examining a commercially available radial head system (axisymmetric), a quasi-anatomic design, and an anatomic reverse-engineered radial head implant. We found no statistical differences in radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics as measured by 3-dimensional joint congruency in cadaveric specimens undergoing continuous simulated forearm rotation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The importance of choosing an implant that matches the general size of the native radial head is recognized, but the degree to which it is necessary to create an implant that replicates the native anatomy to restore elbow stability and prevent cartilage degenerative changes remains unclear. This study concluded that the geometry of the implant did not have a statistically significant effect on joint contact mechanics; therefore, future work is needed to examine additional factors related to implant design, such as material choice and implant positioning to investigate their influence on joint contact mechanics.

Effect of radial head implant shape on joint contact area and location during static loading.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of implant shape on radiocapitellar joint contact area and location in vitro. METHODS: We used 8 fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities. An elbow loading simulator examined joint contact in pronation, neutral rotation, and supination with the elbow at 90° flexion. Muscle tendons were attached to pneumatic actuators to allow for computer-controlled loading to achieve the desired forearm rotation. We performed testing with the native radial head, an axisymmetric implant, a reverse-engineered patient-specific implant, and a population-based quasi-anatomic implant. Implants were inserted using computer navigation. Contact area and location were quantified using a casting technique. RESULTS: We found no significant difference between contact locations for the native radial head and the 3 implants. All of the implants had a contact area lower than the native radial head; however, only the axisymmetric implant was significantly different. There was no significant difference in contact area between implant shapes. CONCLUSIONS: The similar contact areas and locations of the 3 implant designs suggest that the shape of the implant may not be important with respect to radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics when placed optimally using computer navigation. Further work is needed to explore the sensitivity of radial head implant malpositioning on articular contact. The lower contact area of the radial head implants relative to the native radial head is similar to previous benchtop studies and is likely the result of the greater stiffness of the implant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Radial head implant shape does not appear to have a pronounced influence on articular contact, and both axisymmetric and anatomic metal designs result in elevated cartilage stress relative to the intact state.

The effect of radial head implant shape on radiocapitellar kinematics during in vitro forearm rotation.

BACKGROUND: A number of radial head implants are in clinical use for the management of radial head fractures and their sequelae. However, the optimal shape of a radial head implant to ensure proper tracking relative to the capitellum has not been established. This in vitro biomechanical study compared radiocapitellar joint kinematics for 3 radial head implant designs as well as the native head. METHODS: Eight cadaveric upper extremities were tested using a forearm rotation simulator with the elbow at 90° of flexion. Motion of the radius relative to the capitellum was optically tracked. A stem was navigated into a predetermined location and cemented in place. Three unipolar implant shapes were tested: axisymmetric, reverse-engineered patient-specific, and population-based quasi-anatomic. The patient-specific and quasi-anatomic implants were derived from measurements performed on computed tomography models. RESULTS: Medial-lateral and anterior-posterior translation of the radial head with respect to the capitellum varied with forearm rotation and radial head condition. A significant difference in medial-lateral (P = .03) and anterior-posterior (P = .03) translation was found between the native radial head and the 3 implants. No differences were observed among the radial head conditions except for a difference in medial-lateral translation between the axisymmetric and patient-specific implants (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Radiocapitellar kinematics of the tested radial head implants were similar in all but one comparison, and all had different kinematics from the native radial head. Patient-specific radial head implants did not prove advantageous relative to conventional implant designs. The shape of the fixed stem unipolar radial head implants had little influence on radiocapitellar kinematics when optimally positioned in this testing model.