Does implant design, bone quality and activity type affect micromotion at the bone-porous tantalum tibial tray interface?

Introduction Initial large-scale clinical studies of porous tantalum implants have been generally promising with well-fixed implants and few cases of loosening [1–3]. An initial retrieval study suggests increased bone ingrowth in a modular tibial tray design compared to the monoblock design [4]. Since micromotion at the bone-implant interface is known to influence bone ingrowth [5], the goal of this study was to determine the effect of implant design, bone quality and activity type on micromotion at the bone-implant interface, through FE modeling. Patients & Methods Our case-specific FE model of bone was created from CT data (68 year-old female, right tibia, Fig-1). Isotropic properties of cortical and trabecular bone were derived from the calibrated CT data. Modular and monoblock porous tantalum tibial implants were virtually placed in the tibia following surgical guidelines. All models parts were 3D meshed with 4-noded tetrahedral elements (MSC.MARC-Mentat 2013, MSC Software Corporation, USA). Frictional contact was applied to the bone-tantalum interface (µ=0.88) and UHWMPE-Femoral condyle interface (µ=0.05) with all other interfaces bonded. Loading was applied to simulate walking, standing up and descending stairs. For each activity, a full load cycle [6] was applied to the femoral condyles in incremental steps. The direction and magnitude of micromotions were calculated by tracking the motions of nodes of the bone, projected onto the tibial tray. Micromotions were calculated parallel to the implant surface (shear), and perpendicularly (tensile). We report the maximum (resultant) micromotion that occurred during a cycle of each activity. The bone properties were varied to represent a range in BMD (−30%BMD, Norm, +30%BMD). We compared design type, bone quality and activity type considering micromotion below 40 µm to be favorable for bone ingrowth [5]. Results The modular tibial tray showed lower shear micromotion than the monoblock design for shear micromotion (Fig-2). Tensile micromotion was similar between the two designs (Fig-2). Lower bone quality resulted in higher shear micromotion for the modular tibial tray design. The effect of lower bone quality on shear micromotion was less apparent for the monoblock tibial tray design. For both designs, change in the bone quality had minimal effect on the tensile micromotion. For both designs, standing up and descending stairs showed lower micromotion than walking for both the tensile and shear micromotion (Fig-3). The monoblock design showed higher micromotion for standing up and descending stairs compared to the modular design (Fig-3). Discussion In our analysis, activity type had the highest effect on micromotion. Additionally, the modular design showed lower shear micromotion than the monoblock. Although the designs were similar for the the modular and monoblock implants, the difference in micromotion, representing the initial stability of the implant, may partially explain why retrieved modular porous tantalum tibial trays had higher bone ingrowth than the monoblock design.