Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 6/2019

18.03.2019 | Knee Revision Surgery

Modular tumor prostheses: are current stem designs suitable for distal femoral reconstruction? A biomechanical implant stability analysis in Sawbones

verfasst von: Oliver E. Bischel, J. Nadorf, S. B. Klein, S. Gantz, E. Jakubowitz, J. P. Kretzer, J. Arnholdt, J. B. Seeger

Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

High loosening rates after distal femoral replacement may be due to implant design not adapted to specific anatomic and biomechanical conditions.

Materials and methods

A modular tumor system (MUTARS®, Implantcast GmbH) was implanted with either a curved hexagonal or a straight tapered stems in eight Sawbones® in two consecutively generated bone defect (10 cm and 20 cm proximal to knee joint level). Implant-bone-interface micromotions were measured to analyze main fixation areas and to characterize the fixation pattern.

Results

Although areas of highest relative micromotions were measured distally in all groups, areas and lengths of main fixation differed with respect to stem design and bone defect size. Regardless of these changes, overall micromotions could only be reduced with extending bone defects in case of tapered stems.

Conclusions

The tapered design may be favorable in larger defects whereas the hexagonal may be advantageous in defects located more distally.
Literatur
2.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernthal NM, Greenberg M, Heberer K, Eckardt JJ, Fowler EG (2015) What are the functional outcomes of endoprosthestic reconstructions after tumor resection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:812–819CrossRefPubMed Bernthal NM, Greenberg M, Heberer K, Eckardt JJ, Fowler EG (2015) What are the functional outcomes of endoprosthestic reconstructions after tumor resection? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:812–819CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernthal NM, Schwartz AJ, Oakes DA, Kabo JM, Eckardt JJ (2010) How long do endoprosthetic reconstructions for proximal femoral tumors last? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2867–2874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bernthal NM, Schwartz AJ, Oakes DA, Kabo JM, Eckardt JJ (2010) How long do endoprosthetic reconstructions for proximal femoral tumors last? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2867–2874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA (2015) What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:820–830CrossRefPubMed Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA (2015) What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:820–830CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Cristofolini LVM, Cappello A, Toni A (1996) Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J Biomech 29:525–535CrossRefPubMed Cristofolini LVM, Cappello A, Toni A (1996) Mechanical validation of whole bone composite femur models. J Biomech 29:525–535CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Engh CA, O’Connor D, Jasty M, McGovern TF, Bobyn JD, Harris WH (1992) Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 13–29 Engh CA, O’Connor D, Jasty M, McGovern TF, Bobyn JD, Harris WH (1992) Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 13–29
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Gortz W, Nagerl UV, Nagerl H, Thomsen M (2002) Spatial micromovements of uncemented femoral components after torsional loads. J Biomech Eng Trans ASME 124:706–713CrossRef Gortz W, Nagerl UV, Nagerl H, Thomsen M (2002) Spatial micromovements of uncemented femoral components after torsional loads. J Biomech Eng Trans ASME 124:706–713CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171CrossRefPubMed Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2000) Mutars—a modular tumor- and revision system. Experiences at the Munster Tumor Center. Orthopade 29(Suppl 1):S54–S55CrossRefPubMed Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2000) Mutars—a modular tumor- and revision system. Experiences at the Munster Tumor Center. Orthopade 29(Suppl 1):S54–S55CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Jahnke A, Jakubowitz E, Ishaque BA, Rickert M, Bischel O (2016) Influence of cerclages on primary stability of tumor megaprostheses subjected to distal femur defects. Injury 47:453–459CrossRefPubMed Jahnke A, Jakubowitz E, Ishaque BA, Rickert M, Bischel O (2016) Influence of cerclages on primary stability of tumor megaprostheses subjected to distal femur defects. Injury 47:453–459CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Jakubowitz E, Bitsch RG, Heisel C, Lee C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2008) Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: an in vitro comparison. J Biomech 41:3078–3084CrossRefPubMed Jakubowitz E, Bitsch RG, Heisel C, Lee C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2008) Primary rotational stability of cylindrical and conical revision hip stems as a function of femoral bone defects: an in vitro comparison. J Biomech 41:3078–3084CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Jakubowitz E, Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Heisel C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2011) The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study. Clin Biomech 26:257–261CrossRef Jakubowitz E, Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Heisel C, Kretzer JP, Thomsen MN (2011) The effect of multifilaments and monofilaments on cementless femoral revision hip components: an experimental study. Clin Biomech 26:257–261CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O’Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH (1997) In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:707–714CrossRef Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O’Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH (1997) In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:707–714CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Kinkel S, Graage JD, Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Nadorf J (2013) Influence of stem design on the primary stability of megaprostheses of the proximal femur. Int Orthop 37:1877–1883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kinkel S, Graage JD, Kretzer JP, Jakubowitz E, Nadorf J (2013) Influence of stem design on the primary stability of megaprostheses of the proximal femur. Int Orthop 37:1877–1883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C (2010) Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol 101:166–169PubMed Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C (2010) Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol 101:166–169PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Graage JD, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP (2015) Primary rotational stability of various megaprostheses in a biomechanical sawbone model with proximal femoral defects extending to the isthmus. PLoS One 10:e0129149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kinkel S, Nadorf J, Graage JD, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP (2015) Primary rotational stability of various megaprostheses in a biomechanical sawbone model with proximal femoral defects extending to the isthmus. PLoS One 10:e0129149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Nadorf J, Klein SB, Gantz S, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP, Bischel OE (2017) Influence of implant length and bone defect situation on primary stability after distal femoral replacement in vitro. Knee 24:1016–1024CrossRefPubMed Nadorf J, Klein SB, Gantz S, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP, Bischel OE (2017) Influence of implant length and bone defect situation on primary stability after distal femoral replacement in vitro. Knee 24:1016–1024CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Nadorf J, Thomsen M, Gantz S, Sonntag R, Kretzer JP (2014) Fixation of the shorter cementless GTS stem: biomechanical comparison between a conventional and an innovative implant design. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:719–726CrossRefPubMed Nadorf J, Thomsen M, Gantz S, Sonntag R, Kretzer JP (2014) Fixation of the shorter cementless GTS stem: biomechanical comparison between a conventional and an innovative implant design. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:719–726CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Schmidbauer U, Brendel T, Kunze KG, Nietert M, Ecke H (1993) Dynamic force measurement in implantation of total endoprostheses of the hip joint. Unfallchirurgie 19:11–15CrossRefPubMed Schmidbauer U, Brendel T, Kunze KG, Nietert M, Ecke H (1993) Dynamic force measurement in implantation of total endoprostheses of the hip joint. Unfallchirurgie 19:11–15CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Modular tumor prostheses: are current stem designs suitable for distal femoral reconstruction? A biomechanical implant stability analysis in Sawbones
verfasst von
Oliver E. Bischel
J. Nadorf
S. B. Klein
S. Gantz
E. Jakubowitz
J. P. Kretzer
J. Arnholdt
J. B. Seeger
Publikationsdatum
18.03.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03158-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 6/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. 
» Jetzt entdecken

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.