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.

Accuracy assessment of 3D bone reconstructions using CT: an intro comparison.

Computed tomography provides high contrast imaging of the joint anatomy and is used routinely to reconstruct 3D models of the osseous and cartilage geometry (CT arthrography) for use in the design of orthopedic implants, for computer assisted surgeries and computational dynamic and structural analysis. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of bone and cartilage surface model reconstructions by comparing reconstructed geometries with bone digitizations obtained using an optical tracking system. Bone surface digitizations obtained in this study determined the ground truth measure for the underlying geometry. We evaluated the use of a commercially available reconstruction technique using clinical CT scanning protocols using the elbow joint as an example of a surface with complex geometry. To assess the accuracies of the reconstructed models (8 fresh frozen cadaveric specimens) against the ground truth bony digitization-as defined by this study-proximity mapping was used to calculate residual error. The overall mean error was less than 0.4 mm in the cortical region and 0.3 mm in the subchondral region of the bone. Similarly creating 3D cartilage surface models from CT scans using air contrast had a mean error of less than 0.3 mm. Results from this study indicate that clinical CT scanning protocols and commonly used and commercially available reconstruction algorithms can create models which accurately represent the true geometry.

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.

Capitellar excision and hemiarthroplasty affects elbow kinematics and stability.

INTRODUCTION: Capitellar hemiarthroplasty is proposed as a reconstructive option for isolated capitellar deficiency, but there is limited data on its effect on elbow biomechanics. This study assessed the effect of capitellar excision with and without replacement on elbow kinematics and stability, and evaluated 2 different implant surface shapes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten cadaveric arms were tested with an upper extremity joint simulator. Each arm underwent computer tomography scanning for implant sizing and computer-assisted implantation. Kinematic data were obtained using an electromagnetic tracking system during elbow flexion, with the arm oriented in the valgus, varus, and vertical positions. Implants were placed through an extended lateral epicondylar osteotomy using computer-assisted techniques. A repeated-measures design compared 2 implants (anatomical and spherical) to the native capitellum control and capitellar excision states. Outcomes were maximum varus-valgus laxity and rotation of the ulna with respect to the humerus. RESULTS: Excision of the capitellum increased the varus-valgus laxity up to 3.1° in active elbow flexion, with the forearm in pronation but not in supination. Both capitellar implant designs maintained normal varus-valgus laxity in both active and passive elbow flexion. Excision of the capitellum increased external ulnar rotation during active flexion in the vertical and valgus positions up to 1.5°, while both implants restored normal ulnar rotation. The kinematics and stability of the elbows were similar for both implant designs. CONCLUSION: The capitellum appears to have a role as a valgus and external rotational stabilizer of the ulnohumeral joint. This instability was corrected by both designs of capitellar hemiarthroplasty.