Advertisement

Osteoporosis International

, Volume 16, Supplement 2, pp S112–S119 | Cite as

New implant designs for fracture fixation in osteoporotic bone

  • J. Goldhahn
  • J. Seebeck
  • R. Frei
  • B. Frenz
  • I. Antoniadis
  • E. Schneider
Original Article

Abstract

Screws are one of the limiting factors for fixation of implants, particularly in poor bone quality. A class of new implants with an implant–bone–interface optimized regarding load transition by increasing the peripheral area might improve the anchorage of implants in osteoporotic bone. However, the shape of these implants requires new technologies for insertion. The goal of the work presented here was to analyze the relevant parameters regarding implant geometry and to demonstrate the effect of new procedures for their insertion. The investigation was divided into three parts: 1) implant design optimisation, 2) efficiency of cortical bone ablation, and 3) implant insertion technology. Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to investigate the influence of the number of lobes, the radius of the outer curvature and additional milling to remove any sharp changes of section around the lobe. Opening of the cortical bone with an Er:YAG laser was studied using calf cortex from 2 to 7 mm thickness. The effect of a) pulse energy and pulse duration, b) cortical thickness, c) wet or dry boundary conditions on volume and geometry of ablated bone, time required to penetrate the cortical bone and local bone tissue damage was quantified. Pneumatic and ultrasound based insertion were compared in the third experiment. The cortical bone was prepared in the following ways: a) no opening, b) predrilling of three holes (1 mm diameter each) and c) exact pre-cutting of the whole contour. Increasing the radius of the outer curvature from 2 to 5 mm reduces the peak stresses during loading in all planes in the implant as well as in the adjacent cortical bone by about 30–40%. An increase in the number of lobes from two to three decreases the mean peak stress by about 46% (α<0.001) and the range between the minimal and maximal peak stresses for different loading directions by about 83%. Penetration of cortical bone with an Er:YAG laser was possible up to a cortical thickness of 6 mm with fewer than 100 pulses. The ablation rate per pulse increased more with increasing duration than with increasing energy. Signs of bone damage such as melting were only visible when high pulse energies and durations were used. Insertion of the prototype was possible with all devices, but only when the whole contour was cut out of the cortical bone. However, the use of the ultrasound vibrator led to heating up of the tissue fluid and subsequently to water evaporation and tissue damage. Insertion of the prototype was possible with both pneumatic vibrators, but only when the whole contour was cut out of the cortical bone. New implant designs may lead to reduced stress peaks in the surrounding bone and might be inserted with the help of new insertion technologies, namely laser cutting of cortical bone and pneumatic vibration. Further studies are required to optimize these technologies prior to clinical use.

Keywords

Cortical bone Fixation Implant Laser Osteoporosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Cordey J, Borgeaud M, Perren SM (2000) Force transfer between the plate and the bone: relative importance of the bending stiffness of the screws friction between plate and bone. Injury 31:C21–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapman JR, Harrington RM, Lee KM, Anderson PA, Tencer AF, Kowalski D (1996) Factors affecting the pullout strength of cancellous bone screws. J Biomech Eng 118:391–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeCoster TA, Heetderks DB, Downey DJ, Ferries JS, Jones W (1990) Optimizing bone screw pullout force. J Orthop Trauma 4:169–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thompson JD, Benjamin JB, Szivek JA (1997) Pullout strengths of cannulated and noncannulated cancellous bone screws. Clin Orthop 341:241–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Westmoreland GL, McLaurin TM, Hutton WC (2002) Screw pullout strength: a biomechanical comparison of large-fragment and small-fragment fixation in the tibial plateau. J Orthop Trauma 16:178–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy TP, Hill CM, Kapatkin AS, Radin A, Shofer FS, Smith GK (2001) Pullout properties of 3.5-mm AO/ASIF self-tapping and cortex screws in a uniform synthetic material and in canine bone. Vet Surg 30:253–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saka B (2000) Mechanical and biomechanical measurements of five currently available osteosynthesis systems of self-tapping screws. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 38:70–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colgan SA, Hecker AT, Kirker-Head CA, Hayes WC (1998) A comparison of the Synthes 4.5-mm cannulated screw and the Synthes 4.5-mm standard cortex screw systems in equine bone. Vet Surg 27:540–546PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gausepohl T, Mohring R, Pennig D, Koebke J (2001) Fine thread versus coarse thread. A comparison of the maximum holding power. Injury 32:SD1–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asnis SE, Ernberg JJ, Bostrom MP, Wright TM, Harrington RM, Tencer A, Peterson M (1996) Cancellous bone screw thread design and holding power. J Orthop Trauma 10:462–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott WA, Allum RL, Wright KW (1985) Implant-induced trabecular damage in cadaveric femoral necks. Acta Orthop Scand 56:145–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schutz M, Sudkamp NP (2003) Revolution in plate osteosynthesis: new internal fixator systems. J Orthop Sci 8:252–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frigg R. Locking compression plate (LCP) (2001) An osteosynthesis plate based on the dynamic compression plate and the point contact fixator (PC-Fix). Injury 32 (Suppl 2):63–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perren SM (2002) Evolution of the internal fixation of long bone fractures. The scientific basis of biological internal fixation: choosing a new balance between stability and biology. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 84:1093–1110Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marius Nygaard Smith-Petersen (1953) Lancet 265:145–146Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldhahn J, Frei R, Seebeck J (2001) Device for fixing implants on or in a bone. PCT/CH/00/00229(WO 01/80754 A1)1-11-2001Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raftopoulos D, Katsamanis E, Saul F, Liu W, Saddemi S (1993) An intermediate loading rate technique for the determination of mechanical properties of human femoral cortical bone. J Biomed Eng 15:60–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fried NM, Fried D (2001) Comparison of Er:YAG and 9.6-microm TE CO(2) lasers for ablation of skull tissue. Lasers Surg Med 28:335–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonzalez C, van de Merwe WP, Smith M, Reinisch L (1990) Comparison of the erbium-yttrium aluminum garnet and carbon dioxide lasers for in vitro bone and cartilage ablation. Laryngoscope 100:14–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muller R (2003) Bone microarchitecture assessment: current and future trends. Osteoporos Int 14 (Suppl 5):89–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith-Petersen MC, Vangorder GW (1931) Intracapsular fractures of the neck of the femur. Arch Surg 23:715–759Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sehr JR, Szabo RM (1988) Semitubular blade plate for fixation in the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma 2:327–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ring D, McKee MD, Perey BH, Jupiter JB (2001) The use of a blade plate and autogenous cancellous bone graft in the treatment of ununited fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10:501–507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palmer SH, Handley R, Willett K (2000) The use of interlocked “customised” blade plates in the treatment of metaphyseal fractures in patients with poor bone stock. Injury 31:187–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milch H (1954) Blade plate for extension osteotomy of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 36-A:155–158Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carpenter CA, Jupiter JB (1996) Blade plate reconstruction of metaphyseal nonunion of the tibia. Clin Orthop 332:23–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heidemann W, Gerlach KL, Grobel KH, Kollner HG (1998) Influence of different pilot hole sizes on torque measurements and pullout analysis of osteosynthesis screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 26:50–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gantous A, Phillips JH (1995) The effects of varying pilot hole size on the holding power of miniscrews and microscrews. Plast Reconstr Surg 95:1165–1169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lovick DS, Ryken TC, Traynelis VC, Dexter F (1997) Assessment of primary and salvage lateral mass screw insertion torque in a cadaveric model. J Spinal Disord 10:431–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walsh LJ (2003) The current status of laser applications in dentistry. Aust Dent J 48:146–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Azizkhan RG (2003) Laser surgery: new applications for pediatric skin and airway lesions. Curr Opin Pediatr 15:243–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Small IA, Osborn TP, Fuller T, Hussain M, Kobernick S (1979) Observations of carbon dioxide laser and bone bur in the osteotomy of the rabbit tibia. J Oral Surg 37:159–166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tauber C, Farine I, Horoszowski H, Gassner S (1979) Fracture healing in rabbits after osteotomy using the CO2 laser. Acta Orthop Scand 50:385–390PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Peavy GM, Reinisch L, Payne JT, Venugopalan V (1999) Comparison of cortical bone ablations by using infrared laser wavelengths 2.9 to 9.2 microm. Lasers Surg Med 25:421–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hibst R (1992) Mechanical effects of erbium:YAG laser bone ablation. Lasers Surg Med 12:125–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abouzgia MB, James DF (1997) Temperature rise during drilling through bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:342–353PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cordioli G, Majzoub Z (1997) Heat generation during implant site preparation: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:186–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eriksson AR, Albrektsson T, Albrektsson B (1984) Heat caused by drilling cortical bone. Temperature measured in vivo in patients and animals. Acta Orthop Scand 55:629–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Krause WR, Bradbury DW, Kelly JE, Lunceford EM (1982) Temperature elevations in orthopaedic cutting operations. J Biomech 15:267–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Toksvig-Larsen S, Ryd L, Lindstrand A (1992) Temperature influence in different orthopaedic saw blades. J Arthroplasty 7:21–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Watanabe F, Tawada Y, Komatsu S, Hata Y (1992) Heat distribution in bone during preparation of implant sites: heat analysis by real-time thermography. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 7:212–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Frentzen M, Gotz W, Ivanenko M, Afilal S, Werner M, Hering P (2003) Osteotomy with 80-micros CO2 laser pulses—histological results. Lasers Med Sci 18:119–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hafez MI, Coombs RR, Zhou S, McCarthy ID (2002) Ablation of bone, cartilage, and facet joint capsule using Ho:YAG laser. J Clin Laser Med Surg 20:251–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ivanenko MM, Fahimi-Weber S, Mitra T, Wierich W, Hering P (2002) Bone tissue ablation with sub-microS pulses of a Q-switch CO(2) laser: histological examination of thermal side effects. Lasers Med Sci 17:258–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rayan GM, Stanfield DT, Cahill S, Kosanke SD, Kopta JA (1992) Effects of rapid pulsed CO2 laser beam on cortical bone in vivo. Lasers Surg Med 12:615–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hesjedal T, Behme G (2002) The origin of ultrasound-induced friction reduction in microscopic mechanical contacts. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 49:356–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Feller AM, Domres B (1984) [Thermal skin and bone necrosis following injury with an ultrasound bonding machine]. Aktuelle Traumatol 14:37–39PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Goldhahn
    • 1
    • 5
  • J. Seebeck
    • 1
  • R. Frei
    • 2
  • B. Frenz
    • 3
  • I. Antoniadis
    • 4
  • E. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.AO Research InstituteDavosSwitzerland
  2. 2.AO Development InstituteDavosSwitzerland
  3. 3.Institute of Applied PhysicsUniversity of BerneBerneSwitzerland
  4. 4.Institute of Biomedical Engineering of the University and ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Musculoskeletal ResearchSchulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations