Bone remodelling around a cementless glenoid component
Post-operative change in the mechanical loading of bone may trigger its (mechanically induced) adaptation and hamper the mechanical stability of prostheses. This is especially important in cementless components, where the final fixation is achieved by the bone itself. The aim of this study is, first, to gain insight into the bone remodelling process around a cementless glenoid component, and second, to compare the possible bone adaptation when the implant is assumed to be fully bonded (best case scenario) or completely loose (worst case scenario). 3D finite element models of a scapula with and without a cementless glenoid component were created. 3D geometry of the scapula, material properties, and several physiological loading conditions were acquired from or estimated for a specific cadaver. Update of the bone density after implantation was done according to a node-based bone remodelling scheme. Strain energy density for different loading conditions was evaluated, weighted according to their frequencies in activities of daily life and used as a mechanical stimulus for bone adaptation. The average bone density in the glenoid increased after implantation. However, local bone resorption was significant in some regions next to the bone-implant interface, regardless of the interface condition (bonded or loose). The amount of bone resorption was determined by the condition imposed to the interface, being slightly larger when the interface was loose. An ideal screw, e.g. in which material fatigue was not considered, was enough to keep the interface micromotions small and constant during the entire bone adaptation simulation.
|Keywords||Bone remodelling, Cementless implant, Finite element analysis, Glenoid, Shoulder|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10237-011-0360-9, hdl.handle.net/1765/34541|
|Journal||Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology|
Suárez, D.R, Weinans, H.H, & van Keulen, F. (2012). Bone remodelling around a cementless glenoid component. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 11(6), 903–912. doi:10.1007/s10237-011-0360-9