Bone and Joint Institute
The effect of stemless humeral component fixation feature design on bone stress and strain response: a finite element analysis
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-1-2018
Journal
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume
27
Issue
12
First Page
2232
Last Page
2241
URL with Digital Object Identifier
10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.002
Abstract
© 2018 Background: Since the advent of stemless implants, several different fixation feature designs have been used to improve primary implant stability. These stemless designs are diverse, and the rationale for their selection and design has not been thoroughly studied. Accordingly, this investigation assessed the effect of stemless implant geometry on the simulated stress and strain response of the proximal humerus. Methods: Five humeral finite element models were used to examine 10 generic stemless implants with variable fixation features (2 central, 4 peripheral, and 4 boundary crossing). Loads representing 45° and 75° of shoulder abduction were simulated. Implants were compared based on the percentage of implant–bone surface area that remained in contact, the change in bone stress relative to the intact state, and the simulated potential for bone to resorb, remodel, or remain unchanged after reconstruction. Results: The implant–bone contact area was greatest for peripheral, followed by central and boundary-crossing designs. All implants elicited similar bone stress variations, which were greatest 0 to 5 mm beneath the resection and laterally. The simulated potential cortical response was also similar for all implants, with the greatest simulated resorbing potential 0 to 15 mm beneath the resection, and very little expected remodeling. Differences between implants were most prominent within the simulated potential trabecular response, with the central implants having the least bone volume percentage expected to resorb. Conclusions: Simulated humeral bone response after stemless anatomic shoulder replacement depends on fixation feature geometry. Trade-offs exist between implant types. Centrally pegged implants produced the lowest simulated resorbing potential, whereas peripheral implants had the greatest percentages of implant–bone contact area.
