Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics

Hypothesis Our aim was to test whether anatomically designed metallic radial head implants could better reproduce native radiocapitellar contact pressure and areas than nonanatomic implants. Methods The distal humerus and proximal radius from 6 cadaveric upper extremities were serially tested in sup...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2014-04, Vol.23 (4), p.456-462
Hauptverfasser: Sahu, Dipit, MS, Holmes, David M, Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc, Thoreson, Andrew R., MS, Berglund, Lawrence J., BS, An, Kai-Nan, PhD, O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 462
container_issue 4
container_start_page 456
container_title Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
container_volume 23
creator Sahu, Dipit, MS
Holmes, David M
Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc
Thoreson, Andrew R., MS
Berglund, Lawrence J., BS
An, Kai-Nan, PhD
O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD
description Hypothesis Our aim was to test whether anatomically designed metallic radial head implants could better reproduce native radiocapitellar contact pressure and areas than nonanatomic implants. Methods The distal humerus and proximal radius from 6 cadaveric upper extremities were serially tested in supination with 100 N of compression force at 4 angles of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°). By use of a thin flexible pressure transducer, contact pressures and areas were measured for the native radial head, an anatomic implant, a nonanatomic circular monopolar implant, and a bipolar nonanatomic implant. The data (mean contact pressure and mean contact area) were modeled using a 2-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance with P ≤ .05 considered to be significant. Results The mean contact areas for the prosthetic radial heads were significantly less than those seen with the intact radial heads at every angle tested ( P < .01). The mean contact pressures increased significantly with all prosthetic radial head types as compared with the native head. The mean contact pressures increased by 29% with the anatomic prosthesis, 230% with the monopolar prosthesis, and 220% with the bipolar prosthesis. Peak pressures of more than 5 MPa were more commonly observed with both the monopolar and bipolar prostheses than with the anatomic or native radial heads. Conclusions The geometry of radial head implants strongly influences their contact characteristics. In a direct radius-to-capitellum axial loading experiment, an anatomically designed radial head prosthesis had lower and more evenly distributed contact pressures than the nonanatomic implants that were tested.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.028
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1508425610</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1058274613006034</els_id><sourcerecordid>1508425610</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-f21b6b4437b312c4a0e074112c36138b61ef7373570f9a011c734f336c62c67a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhS1ERUvhAdggL9kkzNiOkwoJCVX8VKrURdu15TgTrkOufYmdSn17HG5hwYLVzOKco5nvMPYGoUZA_X6qp0S1AJQ1Yg2ie8bOsJGi0g3A87JD01WiVfqUvUxpAoALBeIFOxVKS2iUOmP3V2GcVwqOeBz5YgdvZ74jO_DDElPeUfaOD5T898Bj-C2Izh58pnm2C5-iD5m7GLJ1me_J7WzwLr1iJ6OdE71-mufs_svnu8tv1fXN16vLT9eVU9DlahTY614p2fYShVMWCFqFZZUaZddrpLGVrWxaGC8sILpWqlFK7bRwurXynL075pZjf66Ustn75LbTAsU1GWygU6LRCEWKR6krf6WFRnNY_N4ujwbBbDTNZApNs9E0iKbQLJ63T_Frv6fhr-MPviL4cBRQefLB02KS8xvMwS_kshmi_2_8x3_cbvYFn51_0COlKa5LKPQMmiQMmNutzq1NlAAapJK_AGLnmPI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1508425610</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Sahu, Dipit, MS ; Holmes, David M ; Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc ; Thoreson, Andrew R., MS ; Berglund, Lawrence J., BS ; An, Kai-Nan, PhD ; O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Sahu, Dipit, MS ; Holmes, David M ; Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc ; Thoreson, Andrew R., MS ; Berglund, Lawrence J., BS ; An, Kai-Nan, PhD ; O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Hypothesis Our aim was to test whether anatomically designed metallic radial head implants could better reproduce native radiocapitellar contact pressure and areas than nonanatomic implants. Methods The distal humerus and proximal radius from 6 cadaveric upper extremities were serially tested in supination with 100 N of compression force at 4 angles of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°). By use of a thin flexible pressure transducer, contact pressures and areas were measured for the native radial head, an anatomic implant, a nonanatomic circular monopolar implant, and a bipolar nonanatomic implant. The data (mean contact pressure and mean contact area) were modeled using a 2-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance with P ≤ .05 considered to be significant. Results The mean contact areas for the prosthetic radial heads were significantly less than those seen with the intact radial heads at every angle tested ( P &lt; .01). The mean contact pressures increased significantly with all prosthetic radial head types as compared with the native head. The mean contact pressures increased by 29% with the anatomic prosthesis, 230% with the monopolar prosthesis, and 220% with the bipolar prosthesis. Peak pressures of more than 5 MPa were more commonly observed with both the monopolar and bipolar prostheses than with the anatomic or native radial heads. Conclusions The geometry of radial head implants strongly influences their contact characteristics. In a direct radius-to-capitellum axial loading experiment, an anatomically designed radial head prosthesis had lower and more evenly distributed contact pressures than the nonanatomic implants that were tested.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24630544</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; anatomic radial head implant ; Cadaver ; circular radial head implant ; contact area ; Contact pressure ; Elbow Joint - physiology ; Elbow Prosthesis ; Female ; Humans ; Humerus - physiology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orthopedics ; prosthesis ; Prosthesis Design ; radial head ; Radius - physiology ; Range of Motion, Articular</subject><ispartof>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2014-04, Vol.23 (4), p.456-462</ispartof><rights>Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-f21b6b4437b312c4a0e074112c36138b61ef7373570f9a011c734f336c62c67a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-f21b6b4437b312c4a0e074112c36138b61ef7373570f9a011c734f336c62c67a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058274613006034$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24630544$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sahu, Dipit, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmes, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thoreson, Andrew R., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berglund, Lawrence J., BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>An, Kai-Nan, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics</title><title>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</title><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><description>Hypothesis Our aim was to test whether anatomically designed metallic radial head implants could better reproduce native radiocapitellar contact pressure and areas than nonanatomic implants. Methods The distal humerus and proximal radius from 6 cadaveric upper extremities were serially tested in supination with 100 N of compression force at 4 angles of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°). By use of a thin flexible pressure transducer, contact pressures and areas were measured for the native radial head, an anatomic implant, a nonanatomic circular monopolar implant, and a bipolar nonanatomic implant. The data (mean contact pressure and mean contact area) were modeled using a 2-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance with P ≤ .05 considered to be significant. Results The mean contact areas for the prosthetic radial heads were significantly less than those seen with the intact radial heads at every angle tested ( P &lt; .01). The mean contact pressures increased significantly with all prosthetic radial head types as compared with the native head. The mean contact pressures increased by 29% with the anatomic prosthesis, 230% with the monopolar prosthesis, and 220% with the bipolar prosthesis. Peak pressures of more than 5 MPa were more commonly observed with both the monopolar and bipolar prostheses than with the anatomic or native radial heads. Conclusions The geometry of radial head implants strongly influences their contact characteristics. In a direct radius-to-capitellum axial loading experiment, an anatomically designed radial head prosthesis had lower and more evenly distributed contact pressures than the nonanatomic implants that were tested.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>anatomic radial head implant</subject><subject>Cadaver</subject><subject>circular radial head implant</subject><subject>contact area</subject><subject>Contact pressure</subject><subject>Elbow Joint - physiology</subject><subject>Elbow Prosthesis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Humerus - physiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>prosthesis</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>radial head</subject><subject>Radius - physiology</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><issn>1058-2746</issn><issn>1532-6500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhS1ERUvhAdggL9kkzNiOkwoJCVX8VKrURdu15TgTrkOufYmdSn17HG5hwYLVzOKco5nvMPYGoUZA_X6qp0S1AJQ1Yg2ie8bOsJGi0g3A87JD01WiVfqUvUxpAoALBeIFOxVKS2iUOmP3V2GcVwqOeBz5YgdvZ74jO_DDElPeUfaOD5T898Bj-C2Izh58pnm2C5-iD5m7GLJ1me_J7WzwLr1iJ6OdE71-mufs_svnu8tv1fXN16vLT9eVU9DlahTY614p2fYShVMWCFqFZZUaZddrpLGVrWxaGC8sILpWqlFK7bRwurXynL075pZjf66Ustn75LbTAsU1GWygU6LRCEWKR6krf6WFRnNY_N4ujwbBbDTNZApNs9E0iKbQLJ63T_Frv6fhr-MPviL4cBRQefLB02KS8xvMwS_kshmi_2_8x3_cbvYFn51_0COlKa5LKPQMmiQMmNutzq1NlAAapJK_AGLnmPI</recordid><startdate>20140401</startdate><enddate>20140401</enddate><creator>Sahu, Dipit, MS</creator><creator>Holmes, David M</creator><creator>Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc</creator><creator>Thoreson, Andrew R., MS</creator><creator>Berglund, Lawrence J., BS</creator><creator>An, Kai-Nan, PhD</creator><creator>O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140401</creationdate><title>Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics</title><author>Sahu, Dipit, MS ; Holmes, David M ; Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc ; Thoreson, Andrew R., MS ; Berglund, Lawrence J., BS ; An, Kai-Nan, PhD ; O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c408t-f21b6b4437b312c4a0e074112c36138b61ef7373570f9a011c734f336c62c67a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>anatomic radial head implant</topic><topic>Cadaver</topic><topic>circular radial head implant</topic><topic>contact area</topic><topic>Contact pressure</topic><topic>Elbow Joint - physiology</topic><topic>Elbow Prosthesis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Humerus - physiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>prosthesis</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>radial head</topic><topic>Radius - physiology</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sahu, Dipit, MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Holmes, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thoreson, Andrew R., MS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berglund, Lawrence J., BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>An, Kai-Nan, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sahu, Dipit, MS</au><au>Holmes, David M</au><au>Fitzsimmons, James S., BSc</au><au>Thoreson, Andrew R., MS</au><au>Berglund, Lawrence J., BS</au><au>An, Kai-Nan, PhD</au><au>O’Driscoll, Shawn W., PhD, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics</atitle><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><date>2014-04-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>456</spage><epage>462</epage><pages>456-462</pages><issn>1058-2746</issn><eissn>1532-6500</eissn><abstract>Hypothesis Our aim was to test whether anatomically designed metallic radial head implants could better reproduce native radiocapitellar contact pressure and areas than nonanatomic implants. Methods The distal humerus and proximal radius from 6 cadaveric upper extremities were serially tested in supination with 100 N of compression force at 4 angles of flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°). By use of a thin flexible pressure transducer, contact pressures and areas were measured for the native radial head, an anatomic implant, a nonanatomic circular monopolar implant, and a bipolar nonanatomic implant. The data (mean contact pressure and mean contact area) were modeled using a 2-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance with P ≤ .05 considered to be significant. Results The mean contact areas for the prosthetic radial heads were significantly less than those seen with the intact radial heads at every angle tested ( P &lt; .01). The mean contact pressures increased significantly with all prosthetic radial head types as compared with the native head. The mean contact pressures increased by 29% with the anatomic prosthesis, 230% with the monopolar prosthesis, and 220% with the bipolar prosthesis. Peak pressures of more than 5 MPa were more commonly observed with both the monopolar and bipolar prostheses than with the anatomic or native radial heads. Conclusions The geometry of radial head implants strongly influences their contact characteristics. In a direct radius-to-capitellum axial loading experiment, an anatomically designed radial head prosthesis had lower and more evenly distributed contact pressures than the nonanatomic implants that were tested.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>24630544</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.028</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-2746
ispartof Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2014-04, Vol.23 (4), p.456-462
issn 1058-2746
1532-6500
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1508425610
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Aged
anatomic radial head implant
Cadaver
circular radial head implant
contact area
Contact pressure
Elbow Joint - physiology
Elbow Prosthesis
Female
Humans
Humerus - physiology
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
prosthesis
Prosthesis Design
radial head
Radius - physiology
Range of Motion, Articular
title Influence of radial head prosthetic design on radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T18%3A50%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence%20of%20radial%20head%20prosthetic%20design%20on%20radiocapitellar%20joint%20contact%20mechanics&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20surgery&rft.au=Sahu,%20Dipit,%20MS&rft.date=2014-04-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=456&rft.epage=462&rft.pages=456-462&rft.issn=1058-2746&rft.eissn=1532-6500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1508425610%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1508425610&rft_id=info:pmid/24630544&rft_els_id=S1058274613006034&rfr_iscdi=true