EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE TESTING CONDITIONS INFLUENCE ON SHOULDER PROSTHESES SUBLUXATION AND EDGE DISPLACEMENT DURING ASTM F2028-05 TESTING

Glenoid failure is one of the major indications for revision in total shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid components should be carefully designed to improve the reliability of the prostheses, and mechanical testing can be a key tool to compare the performances of different designs. The most relevant guidelines for mechanical testing of glenoid prostheses are included in the ASTM F2028-05 Standard. The Standard refers to glenoid subluxation tests, designed to evaluate the intrinsic stability of the prosthesis system, and to glenoid edge displacement tests, which estimate the risk of micro-motions at the bone-glenoid interface. However, some indications given by the Standard are not mandatory, leaving the possibility to choose some parameters of the testing set-up and procedure. The main goal of this study was to investigate how different testing parameters (i.e. loads, velocities and bone-glenoid conformity) may affect the test results. In order to reach this target an experimental apparatus was developed and mechanical tests were performed on a keeled glenoid. The study showed that the applied load and the bone-glenoid conformity have a significant effect on the tests results, because of bone and glenoid deformation. Contrarily, the testing velocity was not found to be an influencing testing parameter.

[1]  Effect of joint conformity on glenoid component fixation in total shoulder arthroplasty , 2004, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[2]  D R Pichora,et al.  Shoulder prosthesis subluxation: theory and experiment. , 2000, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[3]  U P Wyss,et al.  Loosening performance of cemented glenoid prosthesis design pairs. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[4]  T. Vogl,et al.  Effect of abducting and adducting muscle activity on glenohumeral translation, scapular kinematics and subacromial space width in vivo. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[5]  T. Thornhill,et al.  Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. , 2005, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[6]  P. Rozing,et al.  Effect of glenoid component inclination on its fixation and humeral head subluxation in total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2004, Clinical biomechanics.

[7]  Christian Gerber,et al.  Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. , 2005, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[8]  J L Herder,et al.  Translational stiffness of the replaced shoulder joint. , 2003, Journal of biomechanics.

[9]  D R Pichora,et al.  Mechanical testing of shoulder prostheses and recommendations for glenoid design. , 2000, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[10]  Force controlled fatigue testing of shoulder prostheses , 2004 .

[11]  B. Magovern,et al.  Shoulder replacement: emerging trends , 2006 .

[12]  Mark Taylor,et al.  Finite element modelling of glenohumeral kinematics following total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  C A Rockwood,et al.  Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  S M Howell,et al.  Normal and abnormal mechanics of the glenohumeral joint in the horizontal plane. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  R. Cofield,et al.  Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. , 2001, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.