Stiffness and ultimate load of osseointegrated prosthesis fixations in the upper and lower extremity

BioMedical Engineering OnLine

Bastian Welke¹  Christof Hurschler¹  Marie Föller²  Michael Schwarze¹  Tilman Calliess² 

[1] Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625 Hannover, Germany

[2] Department of Orthopaedics, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625 Hannover, Germany

关键词: Synthetic bones;    Human bones;    Axial pull-out;    Bending;    In vitro;    Ultimate load;    Stiffness;    Skeletal attachment;    Osseointegration;    Transhumeral amputation;    Transfemoral amputation;   

Others  :  797447
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-925X-12-70

 received in 2013-03-26, accepted in 2013-07-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Techniques for the skeletal attachment of amputation-prostheses have been developed over recent decades. This type of attachment has only been performed on a small number of patients. It poses various potential advantages compared to conventional treatment with a socket, but is also associated with an increased risk of bone or implant-bone interface fracture in the case of a fall. We therefore investigated the bending stiffness and ultimate bending moment of such devices implanted in human and synthetic bones.

Methods

Eight human specimens and 16 synthetic models of the proximal femora were implanted with lower extremity prostheses and eight human specimens and six synthetic humeri were implanted with upper extremity prostheses. They were dissected according to typical amputation levels and underwent loading in a material testing machine in a four-point bending setup. Bending stiffness, ultimate bending moment and fracture modes were determined in a load to failure experiment. Additionally, axial pull-out was performed on eight synthetic specimens of the lower extremity.

Results

Maximum bending moment of the synthetic femora was 160.6±27.5 Nm, the flexural rigidity of the synthetic femora was 189.0±22.6 Nm². Maximum bending moment of the human femora was 100.4±38.5 Nm, and the flexural rigidity was 137.8±29.4 Nm². The maximum bending moment of the six synthetic humeri was 104.9±19.0 Nm, and the flexural rigidity was 63.7±3.6 Nm². For the human humeri the maximum bending moment was 36.7±11.0 Nm, and the flexural rigidity at was 43.7±10.5 Nm². The maximum pull-out force for the eight synthetic femora was 3571±919 N.

Conclusion

Significant differences were found between human and synthetic specimens of the lower and upper extremity regarding maximum bending moment, bending displacement and flexural rigidity. The results of this study are relevant with respect to previous finding regarding the load at the interfaces of osseointegrated prosthesis fixation devices and are crucial for the development of safety devices intended to protect the bone-implant interface from damaging loadings.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Welke et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hagberg K, Brånemark R: One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses–rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009, 46:1-16.
• [2]Sullivan J, Uden M, Robinson KP, Sooriakumaran S: Rehabilitation of the trans-femoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int 2003, 27:114-120.
• [3]Haraldson T, Carlsson GE: Bite force and oral function in patients with osseointegrated oral implants. Scand J Dent Res 1977, 85:200-208.
• [4]Branemark P-II: Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983, 50:399-410.
• [5]Aschoff HH, Clausen a, Tsoumpris K, Hoffmeister T: [Implantation of the endo-exo femur prosthesis to improve the mobility of amputees]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2011, 23:462-472.
• [6]Aschoff HH, Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Rubin LE: Transcutaneous, distal femoral, intramedullary attachment for above-the-knee prostheses: an endo-exo device. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010, 92(Suppl 2):180-186. American volume
• [7]Hagberg K, Branemark R, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B: Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008, 32:29-41.
• [8]Tillander J, Hagberg K, Hagberg L, Brånemark R: Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: infectious complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2781-2788.
• [9]Blumentritt S, Schmalz T, Jarasch R: The Safety of C-Leg: Biomechanical Tests. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 2009, 21:2-15.
• [10]Frossard LA: Load on osseointegrated fixation of a transfemoral amputee during a fall: Determination of the time and duration of descent. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010, 34:472-487.
• [11]Frossard LA, Tranberg R, Haggstrom E, Pearcy M, Branemark R: Load on osseointegrated fixation of a transfemoral amputee during a fall: loading, descent, impact and recovery analysis. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010, 34:85-97.
• [12]Welke B, Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Calliess T, Seehaus F: Multi-body simulation of various falling scenarios for determining resulting loads at the prosthesis interface of transfemoral amputees with osseointegrated fixation. Journal of orthopaedic research: official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society 2013, 31:1123-1129.
• [13]Tomaszewski PK, Verdonschot N, Bulstra SK, Verkerke GJ: A comparative finite-element analysis of bone failure and load transfer of osseointegrated prostheses fixations. Ann Biomed Eng 2010, 38:2418-2427.
• [14]Lunow C, Staubach K-H, Aschoff H-H: [Endo-exo femoral prosthesis: clinical course after primary implantation of an intramedullary percutaneous endo-exo femoral prosthesis following upper leg amputation]. Der Unfallchirurg 2010, 113:589-593.
• [15]Bunke S, Wulff W, Kraft M: Analysis of risks in using a bone-anchored limb prosthesis. Orthopädie-Technik 2010, 11:800-804.
• [16]Chiu J, Robinovitch SN: Prediction of upper extremity impact forces during falls on the outstretched hand. J Biomech 1998, 31:1169-1176.
• [17]DeGoede KM, Shton-Miller JA: Fall arrest strategy affects peak hand impact force in a forward fall. J Biomech 2002, 35:843-848.
• [18]Grundei H, Von Stein T, Schulte-Bockhof D, Kausch C, Gollwitzer H, Gradinger R: Die Endo-Exo-Femurprothese - Update eines Versorgungskonzeptes zur Rehabilitation von Oberschenkelamputierten. Orthopädie-Technik 2009, 3/09:143-149.
• [19]Frossard L, Stevenson N, Smeathers J, Häggström E, Hagberg K, Sullivan J, Ewins D, Gow DL, Gray S, Brånemark R: Monitoring of the load regime applied on the osseointegrated fixation of a trans-femoral amputee: a tool for evidence-based practice. Prosthet Orthot Int 2008, 32:68-78.
• [20]Gardner MP, Chong ACM, Pollock AG, Wooley PH: Mechanical evaluation of large-size fourth-generation composite femur and tibia models. Ann Biomed Eng 2010, 38:613-620.
• [21]Soininvaara T a, Harju K a L, Miettinen HJ a, Kröger HPJ: Periprosthetic bone mineral density changes after unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Knee 2013, 20:120-127.
• [22]Sievänen H, Kannus P, Oja P, Vuori I: Precision of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in the upper extremities. Bone Miner 1993, 20:235-243.
• [23]Heiner AD: Structural properties of fourth-generation composite femurs and tibias. J Biomech 2008, 41:3282-3284.