TY - JOUR
T1 - Stress distribution of the patellofemoral joint in the anatomic V-shape and curved dome-shape femoral component
T2 - a comparison of resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae
AU - Huang, Chang Hung
AU - Hsu, Lin I.
AU - Chang, Ting Kuo
AU - Chuang, Tai Yuan
AU - Shih, Shih Liang
AU - Lu, Yung Chang
AU - Chen, Chen Sheng
AU - Huang, Chun Hsiung
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Science and Technology in Taiwan (MOST 100-2221-E-195-001-MY2 and MOST 102-2221-E-195-001). We particularly thank Colin J. McClean for his kind assistance in language editing and proofreading of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Purpose: Whether to resurface the patella in knee replacement remains a controversial issue. The geometrical design of the trochlear groove in the femoral component could play an important role in determining the stress distribution on the patellofemoral joint, but this has not been sufficiently reported on. This study attempted to determine the effect of implant design on contact mechanics by means of a finite element method.Methods: Two designs, an anatomical V-shape design (VSD) and a dome-shape design (DSD), for the anterior trochlear surface in a contemporary femoral component were chosen for examining the contact characteristics. The use and absence of patella resurfacing was simulated. The stress and strain distribution on the patellar bone and the polyethylene component were calculated for comparison.Results: Without patellar resurfacing, the maximal compressive strain in the patellar bone in the VSD model was about 20 % lower than the DSD model. On the other hand, with resurfacing, the maximal strain for the VSD model was 13.3 % greater than for DSD. Uneven stress distribution at the bone–implant interface was also noted for the two designs.Conclusion: The femoral component with a V-shape trochlear groove reduced the compressive strain on the unresurfaced patella. If resurfacing the patella, the femoral component with a curved domed-shape design might reduce the strain in the remaining patellar bone. Uneven stress could occur at the bone–implant interface, so design modifications for improving fixation strength and medialization of the patellar button would be helpful in reducing the risk of peg fracture or loosening.Level of evidence: III.
AB - Purpose: Whether to resurface the patella in knee replacement remains a controversial issue. The geometrical design of the trochlear groove in the femoral component could play an important role in determining the stress distribution on the patellofemoral joint, but this has not been sufficiently reported on. This study attempted to determine the effect of implant design on contact mechanics by means of a finite element method.Methods: Two designs, an anatomical V-shape design (VSD) and a dome-shape design (DSD), for the anterior trochlear surface in a contemporary femoral component were chosen for examining the contact characteristics. The use and absence of patella resurfacing was simulated. The stress and strain distribution on the patellar bone and the polyethylene component were calculated for comparison.Results: Without patellar resurfacing, the maximal compressive strain in the patellar bone in the VSD model was about 20 % lower than the DSD model. On the other hand, with resurfacing, the maximal strain for the VSD model was 13.3 % greater than for DSD. Uneven stress distribution at the bone–implant interface was also noted for the two designs.Conclusion: The femoral component with a V-shape trochlear groove reduced the compressive strain on the unresurfaced patella. If resurfacing the patella, the femoral component with a curved domed-shape design might reduce the strain in the remaining patellar bone. Uneven stress could occur at the bone–implant interface, so design modifications for improving fixation strength and medialization of the patellar button would be helpful in reducing the risk of peg fracture or loosening.Level of evidence: III.
KW - Contact characteristics
KW - Knee replacement
KW - Patellar resurfacing
KW - Patellofemoral joint
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84919936157&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84919936157&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00167-014-3485-4
DO - 10.1007/s00167-014-3485-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 25539687
AN - SCOPUS:84919936157
SN - 0942-2056
VL - 25
SP - 263
EP - 271
JO - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
JF - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
IS - 1
ER -