Despite the emergence of stemless humeral implants that utilize short fixation features to gain purchase solely in the metaphysis, the literature contains little information regarding the morphology and mechanical properties of the humerus’ proximal trabecular-canal, and how stemless implants impact bone response. The present work employs in-silico tools, including CT-based and Finite Element (FE) methods, to define parameters that may influence stemless implant design.
The density and morphology of the proximal humerus were assessed using CT-derived point clouds of the trabecular-canal. Bone density was found to diminish 15-20mm beneath the humeral head resection and was greater peripherally. The depth, path and bounding diameters of the proximal trabecular-canal were also quantified and established the spatial constraints in which implants should be designed.
To address the lack of consensus regarding the FE modelling of humeral trabecularstiffness, eight (8) FE models were constructed then duplicated six different trabecularstiffness relationships. The deviation induced in FE outcomes by stiffness relationship selection was quantified. It was determined that inhomogeneous stiffness definition is important; however, the anatomic site from which the stiffness is defined induced minor deviations in the implant-bone contact area, the change in bone stresses and the potential bone response following stemless reconstruction.
Finally, with humeral FE modelling parameters defined, a series of ten generic stemless implants were designed with fixation features that were primarily central, peripheral or boundary-crossing. A population of five (5) cadaveric humeral FE models were constructed for each implant. Tradeoffs were found, with central implants producing the least resorbing potential, and peripheral implants maintaining the most implant-bone contact. Regardless of fixation feature design, predicted bone changes were most prominent within the lateral quadrant of the humerus, directly beneath the humeral head resection.
The present work advances the understanding of stemless humeral arthroplasty. The morphological parameters defined provide a spatial definition of the region in which stemless implants function. Through the development of humeral FE models, general trends in bone response following stemless reconstruction were noted; along with tradeoffs regarding the placement of stemless fixation features. These methods can be applied in the design of future stemless implants.
|1988||Schaffler MB, Burr DB. Stiffness of compact bone: effects of porosity and density. J Biomech. 1988;21(1):13-16.|
|1892||Wolff J. Das Gesetz der Transformation der Knochen. Berlin: Hirschwald; 1892.|
|2005||Mow VC, Huiskes R, eds. Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics & Mechano-Biology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.|
|1992||Soslowsky LJ, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU, Pawluk RJ, Ateshian GA, Mow VC. Quantitation of in situ contact areas at the glenohumeral joint: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Res. July 1992;10(4):524-534.|
|1998||Kopperdahl DL, Keaveny TM. Yield strain behavior of trabecular bone. J Biomech. July 1998;31(7):601-608.|
|1986||Wolff J. The Law of Bone Remodelling. Maquet P, Furlong R, trans. New York, NY: Springer; 1986.|
|1992||Huiskes R, Weinans H, Van Rietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. January 1992;274:124-134.|
|2016||Vijayakumar V, Quenneville CE. Quantifying the regional variations in the mechanical properties of cancellous bone of the tibia using indentation testing and quantitative computed tomographic imaging. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H-J Eng Med. June 2016;230(6):588-593.|
|2008||Schileo E, Dall’Ara E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Schotkamp T, Baleani M, Viceconti M. An accurate estimation of bone density improves the accuracy of subject-specific finite element models. J Biomech. August 7, 2008;41(11):2483-2491.|
|1977||Carter DR, Hayes WC. The compressive behavior of bone as a two-phase porous structure. J Bone Joint Surg. 1977;59A(7):954-962.|
|2004||Bayraktar HH, Morgan EF, Niebur GL, Morris GE, Wong EK, Keaveny TM. Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue. J Biomech. January 2004;37(1):27-35.|
|2007||Schileo E, Taddei F, Malandrino A, Cristofolini L, Viceconti M. Subject-specific finite element models can accurately predict strain levels in long bones. J Biomech. 2007;40(13):2982-2989.|
|1976||Cowin SC, Hegedus DH. Bone remodeling, I: theory of adaptive elasticity. J Elast. 1976;6(3):313-326.|
|2005||Wu G, van der Helm FCT, Veeger HEJ, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion, II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. May 2005;38(5):981-992.|
|2000||Niebur GL, Feldstein MJ, Yuen JC, Chen TJ, Keaveny TM. High-resolution finite element models with tissue strength asymmetry accurately predict failure of trabecular bone. J Biomech. December 2000;33(12):1575-1583.|
|1992||Cifuentes AO, Kalbag A. A performance study of tetrahedral and hexahedral elements in 3-D finite element structural analysis. Finite Elem Anal Des. 1992;12(3-4):313-318.|
|2006||Ramos A, Simões JA. Tetrahedral versus hexahedral finite elements in numerical modelling of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys. November 2006;28(9):916.|
|2007||Yosibash Z, Trabelsi N, Milgrom C. Reliable simulations of the human proximal femur by high-order finite element analysis validated by experimental observations. J Biomech. 2007;40(16):3688-3699.|
|2002||Taylor WR, Roland E, Ploeg H, Hertig D, Klabunde R, Warner MD, Hobatho MC, Rakotomanana L, Clift SE. Determination of orthotropic bone elastic constants using FEA and modal analysis. J Biomech. June 2002;35(6):767-773.|
|1995||Benzley SE, Perry E, Merkley K, Clark B, Sjaardema G. A comparison of all-hexahedral and all-tetrahedral finite element meshes for elastic and elasto-plastic analysis. Proceedings of the 4th International Meshing Roundtable; October 16-17, 1995; Albuquerque, NM.|
|1987||Carter DR, Fyhrie DP, Whalen RT. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech. 1987;20(8):785-794.|
|1999||Kabel J, van Rietbergen B, Dalstra M, Odgaard A, Huiskes R. The role of an effective isotropic tissue modulus in the elastic properties of cancellous bone. J Biomech. 1999;32(7):673-680.|
|2013||Keyak JH, Sigurdsson S, Karlsdottir GS, Oskarsdottir D, Sigmarsdottir A, Kornak J, Harris TB, Sigurdsson G, Jonsson BY, Siggeirsdottir K, Eiriksdottir G, Gudnason V, Lang TF. Effect of finite element model loading condition on fracture risk assessment in men and women: the AGES-Reykjavik study. Bone. November 2013;57(1):18-29.|
|1992||Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. December 1992;25(12):1425-1441.|
|2006||Peng L, Bai J, Zeng X, Zhou Y. Comparison of isotropic and orthotropic material property assignments on femoral finite element models under two loading conditions. Med Eng Phys. April 2006;28(3):227-233.|
|2008||Austman RL, Milner JS, Holdsworth DW, Dunning CE. The effect of the density–modulus relationship selected to apply material properties in a finite element model of long bone. J Biomech. November 14, 2008;41(15):3171-3176.|
|2001||Morgan EF, Keaveny TM. Dependence of yield strain of human trabecular bone on anatomic site. J Biomech. 2001;34(5):569-577.|
|2006||Hadjidakis DJ, Androulakis II. Bone remodeling. Annals NY Acad Sci. December 2006;1092(1):385-396.|
|2003||Morgan EF, Bayraktar HH, Keaveny TM. Trabecular bone modulus–density relationships depend on anatomic site. J Biomech. July 2003;36(7):897-904.|
|1987||Huiskes R, Weinans H, Grootenboer HJ, Dalstra M, Fudala B, Slooff TJ. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech. 1987;20(11-12):1135-1150.|
|1993||Rho JY, Ashman RB, Turner CH. Young's modulus of trabecular and cortical bone material: ultrasonic and microtensile measurements. J Biomech. February 1993;26(2):111-119.|
|2011||Tadepalli SC, Erdemir A, Cavanagh PR. Comparison of hexahedral and tetrahedral elements in finite element analysis of the foot and footwear. J Biomech. August 11, 2011;44(12):2337-2343.|
|2000||Huiskes R, Ruimerman R, van Lenthe GH, Janssen JD. Effects of mechanical forces on maintenance and adaptation of form in trabecular bone. Nature. June 8, 2000;405(6787):704-706.|
|2011||Cong A, Buijs JOD, Dragomir-Daescu D. In situ parameter identification of optimal density–elastic modulus relationships in subject-specific finite element models of the proximal femur. Med Eng Phys. March 2011;33(2):164-173.|