Dislocation of total hip replacements (THRs) remains a severe complication after total hip arthroplasty. However, the contribution of influencing factors, such as implant positioning and soft tissue tension, is still not well understood due to the multi-factorial nature of the dislocation process. In order to systematically evaluate influencing factors on THR stability, our novel approach is to extract the anatomical environment of the implant into a musculoskeletal model. Within a hardware-in-the-loop (HiL) simulation the model provides hip joint angles and forces for a physical setup consisting of a compliant support and a robot which accordingly moves and loads the real implant components [2]. The purpose of this work was to validate the HiL test system against experimental data derived from one patient. The musculoskeletal model includes all segments of the right leg with a simplified trunk. Bone segments were reconstructed from a human computed tomography dataset. The segments were mutually linked in the multibody software SIMPACK (v8.9, Simpack AG, Gilching, Germany) by ideal joints starting from the ground-fixed foot. Furthermore, inertia properties were incorporated based on anthropometric data. Inverse dynamics was used to obtain muscle forces. Thus, optimization techniques were implemented to resolve the distribution problem of muscle forces whereas muscles were assumed to act along straight lines. For validation purposes the model was scaled to one patient with an instrumented THR [1]. Averaged kinematic measurements were used to obtain joint angles for a knee-bending motion. Then, the model was exported into real-time capable machine code and embedded into the HiL environment. Real implant components of a standard THR were attached to the endeffector of the robot and the compliant support. Finally, the HiL simulation was carried out simulating knee-bending. Experimentally measured hip joint forces from the patient [1] were used to validate the HiL simulation.Introduction
Methods
At present, wear investigations of total hip replacement (THR) are performed in accordance with the ISO standard 14242, which is based on empirically determined relative motion data and exclusively describes the gait cycle. However, besides continuous walking, a number of additional activities characterize the movement sequences in everyday life and influence the wear rates as well as the size and shape of wear debris. Disagreements of in vitro and in vivo wear mechanisms seemed to be a result of differences between in vitro and in vivo kinematics and dynamics. This requires an optimization of the current test procedures and parameters. Hence, the aim of the present study was to evaluate most frequent activities of daily living, based on available in vivo data, in order to generate parameter sets according to loading and rotational movements close to the physiological situation. For the generation of angular patterns, time-dependent three-dimensional trajectories of reference points were used from the HIP98 database of Bergmann. The data set was evaluated and interpolated using analytical techniques to simulate consecutive smooth motion cycles in hip wear simulators or further test devices. The calculated relative joint movement was expressed by an ordered set of three elementary rotations and was complemented with three force components of the joint contact force to generate kinematically and dynamically consistent parameter sets. The obtained sets included the activities walking, knee bending, stair climbing and a combined load case of sitting down and standing up for an averaged patient. Generated slide tracks, created by the use of the angular patterns, demonstrated differences according to the kinematics between selected daily life activities and those established for the ISO standard 14242. In particular, for the relative flexion-extension rotational movement, routine activities showed significant higher ranges of motion. Additionally, the depicted force pattern underlined that the prevailing force component varied considerably between different activities. These deviations in range of motion and joint forces could be attributed to disagreements between in vitro and in vivo results of THR wear testing. The Integration of frequent activities of daily living in the in vivo test protocol could be realized by means of the sequential arrangement of the four investigated activities.
‘High flexion’ polyethylene tibial tray inserts are available from total knee replacement (TKR) manufacturers. There is currently no published data available that examines how much extra knee flexion these new implants give or if there are any wear consequences for the change in design. The high flexion inserts are narrower posteriorly than standard inserts and have chamfers anteriorly and on the post in cruciate sacrificing designs. This prospective randomised controlled trial of 100 patients undergoing posterior stabilised TKR compared knee flexion, measured intra-operatively by a computer navigation system, of the standard and high flexion trial inserts in the same knee. Patients were then randomised to receive either a standard or ‘high flexion’ definitive component and the stability assessed. The post-operative knee flexion of all patients was measured at six months. High flexion inserts did not give significantly more knee flexion than standard inserts either per-operatively at the trial insert stage, or at six months post-op and resulted in marginally more anterior draw. The average per-operative difference in flexion between standard and high flex inserts measured in the same knee was 3.2° (range -4-18°) The average knee flexion at 6 months post op was 106° for both groups. The average change in knee flexion comparing pre and post op was 2.3° for the high flex group and 0.6° for the standard insert group. Laboratory Tek scan contact pressure analysis at the surface of the standard and high flexion designs was not significantly different, but the thinner polyethylene of the high flexion design raises questions about wear characteristics. High flexion polyethylene inserts are probably not justified in terms of improved knee flexion, but may be a useful option in certain technical circumstances during TKR such as patella baja or if the patella impinges on the post in deep flexion.
