Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How much bone support does an anatomic glenoid component need?
Verhaegen, Filip; Campopiano, Emma; Debeer, Philippe; Scheys, Lennart; Innocenti, Bernardo.
Afiliação
  • Verhaegen F; Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Division of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: filip.verhaegen@uzleuven.be.
  • Campopiano E; Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.
  • Debeer P; Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Division of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Scheys L; Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Division of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  • Innocenti B; Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg ; 29(4): 743-754, 2020 Apr.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32197764
BACKGROUND: An important reason for failure of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is glenoid component loosening. We investigated the effect of backside bone support on the risk of failure of a glenoid component. METHODS: A finite element model was developed. Virtual surgery was performed for 2 types of glenoid components (cemented all polyethylene [PE] vs. metal backed [MB]), both with gradually decreasing backside bone support. Both bone failure and fixation failure were analyzed. The percentages of bone failure and fixation failure in terms of the critical cement volume (CCV) and micromotion-threshold percentage ratio (MTPR) for the PE and MB components, respectively, were defined and compared. RESULTS: For the reference PE model, the percentages of bone failure and fixation failure (CCV) were 17% and 34%, respectively. With eccentric loading for the MB component, the percentages of bone failure and fixation failure (MTPR) were 6% and 3%, respectively. A global increase in failure was observed with decreasing bone support. The increase in fixation failure, starting from the reference values (MTPR vs. CCV), was relatively more pronounced for the MB component (136% vs. 128%). DISCUSSION: Decreasing backside bone support for an anatomic glenoid component leads to an increased risk of fixation and bone failure. For PE components, decreasing backside support to 95% bone support had only a limited effect. In the case of an MB component, we noticed an increase in micromotion and bone failure already starting from 97% bone support. We conclude that an anatomic glenoid component should always be implanted while maximizing backside bone support.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Falha de Prótese / Cavidade Glenoide / Artroplastia do Ombro / Prótese de Ombro Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Assunto da revista: ORTOPEDIA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Falha de Prótese / Cavidade Glenoide / Artroplastia do Ombro / Prótese de Ombro Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Assunto da revista: ORTOPEDIA Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Estados Unidos