Advertisement

Pre-clinical Analysis of Implanted Ankle Joint Using Finite Element Method

  • Subrata Mondal
  • Rajesh GhoshEmail author
Conference paper
  • 19 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

Slacken off of the implant component, dislocation, misalignment, fracture, wear in meniscal bearing, etc. are the most important reasons behind the failure of ankle arthroplasty. The study on the effects of implant material on tibia bone stress due to total ankle replacement (TAR) is the prime goal of this paper. Computed tomography (CT) scan data was used to develop the bones, and other soft tissues for the intact and implanted ankle joint. Three implanted FE models were generated having a different combination of implant material. The implanted FE model 1 is having the implant material combination of metal and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). The combination of implant material in FE model 2 was ceramic and UHMWPE, whereas FE model 3 consists of the implant material combination of ceramic and carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK), respectively. Three positions during gait such as dorsiflexion, neutral, and plantar flexion positions were considered as applied loading condition, along with muscle force and ligaments. Stress shielding was found in the proximal region of the tibia (i.e., away from the implant neighborhood) due to implantation. Implant material combinations have less impact on tibia bone stress. The present outcome recommended that ceramic can be used as a substitute for metal and CFR-PEEK as an alternate to UHMWPE owing to the high metal release of metal and UHMWPE for long-standing attainment of the prosthetic components.

Keywords

Ankle joint Implant material Finite element method Tibia 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

None.

Ethical Statement

This study is not an experimental one. This is a numerical study where we used the CT scan data of a living subject. Informed consent was obtained from the subject for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    National Joint Registry (2016) National Joint Registry for England and Wales, 13th Annual Report. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Reports,PublicationsandMinutes/Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx
  2. 2.
    Ghosh R, Mukharjee K, Gupta S (2013) Bone remodelling around uncemented metallic and ceramic acetabular components. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H: J Eng Med 227(5):490–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghosh R, Gupta S (2014) Bone remodelling around cementless composite acetabular components: the effects of implant geometry and implant-bone interfacial conditions. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 32:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Manley MT, Ong KL, Kurtz SM (2006) The potential for bone loss in acetabular structures following THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reggiani B, Leardini A, Corazza F (2006) Finite element analysis of total ankle replacement during the stance phase of gait. J Biomech 39:1435–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espinosa N, Walti M, Favre P (2010) Misalignment of total ankle components can induce high joint contact pressures. J Bone Jt Surg 92:1179–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sopher SR, Andrew AA, James DC (2017) Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains. Med Eng Phys 42:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mondal S, Ghosh R (2018) The effects of implant orientations and implant–bone interfacial conditions on potential causes of failure of tibial component due to total ankle replacement. J Med Biol Eng 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0435-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Putra AMS, Harun MN, Ardiyansyah S (2014) Study of wear prediction on total ankle replacement. Adv Mater Res 845:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smyth A, Fisher J, Suner S (2017) Influence of kinematics on the wear of a total ankle replacement. J Biomech 53:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerschhofer D, Gundapaneni D, Christof S (2016) Applicability of PEEK and its composites in total ankle replacement devices and wear rate predictions. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2:065012.  https://doi.org/10.1088/2057-1976/2/6/065012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mondal S, Ghosh R (2017) A numerical study on stress distribution across the ankle joint: Effects of material distribution of bone, muscle force and ligaments. J Orthop 14:329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linde F, Hvid I, Madsen F (1992) The effect of specimen geometry on the mechanical behaviour of trabecular bone specimens. J Biomech 25:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    STAR Surgical Technique—Small Bone Innovations, Inc. Cited 4 Mar 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beumar A, Hemert WLV, Swierstra BA (2003) A biomechanical evaluation of the tibiofibular and tibiotalar ligaments of the ankle. Foot Ankle Int 24:426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liacouras PC, Wayne JS (2007) Computational modelling to predict mechanical function of joints: application to the lower leg simulation of two cadaver studies. J Biomech Eng 129:811–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corazza F, O’Connor JJ, Leardini A (2003) Ligament fibre recruitment and forces for the anterior drawer test at the human ankle joint. J Biomech 36(3):363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bekerom VDMP, Raven EE (2007) The distal fascicle of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament as a cause of tibiotalar impingement syndrome: a current concepts review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(4):465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mondal S, Ghosh R (2019) Effects of implant orientation and implant material on tibia bone strain, implant–bone micromotion, contact pressure, and wear depth due to total ankle replacement. J Eng Med Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411918823811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seireg A, Arvikar RJ (1975) The prediction of muscular load shearing and joint forces in the lower extremities during walking. J Biomech 8:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ozen M, Sayman O, Havitcioglu H (2013) Modelling and stress analyses of a normal foot-ankle and a prosthetic foot-ankle complex. Acta Bioeng Biomech 15(3):19–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringIIT MandiMandiIndia

Personalised recommendations