Simon R. Deluce

Capitellar excision and hemiarthroplasty affects elbow kinematics and stability

INTRODUCTION Capitellar hemiarthroplasty is proposed as a reconstructive option for isolated capitellar deficiency, but there is limited data on its effect on elbow biomechanics. This study assessed the effect of capitellar excision with and without replacement on elbow kinematics and stability, and evaluated 2 different implant surface shapes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten cadaveric arms were tested with an upper extremity joint simulator. Each arm underwent computer tomography scanning for implant sizing and computer-assisted implantation. Kinematic data were obtained using an electromagnetic tracking system during elbow flexion, with the arm oriented in the valgus, varus, and vertical positions. Implants were placed through an extended lateral epicondylar osteotomy using computer-assisted techniques. A repeated-measures design compared 2 implants (anatomical and spherical) to the native capitellum control and capitellar excision states. Outcomes were maximum varus-valgus laxity and rotation of the ulna with respect to the humerus. RESULTS Excision of the capitellum increased the varus-valgus laxity up to 3.1° in active elbow flexion, with the forearm in pronation but not in supination. Both capitellar implant designs maintained normal varus-valgus laxity in both active and passive elbow flexion. Excision of the capitellum increased external ulnar rotation during active flexion in the vertical and valgus positions up to 1.5°, while both implants restored normal ulnar rotation. The kinematics and stability of the elbows were similar for both implant designs. CONCLUSION The capitellum appears to have a role as a valgus and external rotational stabilizer of the ulnohumeral joint. This instability was corrected by both designs of capitellar hemiarthroplasty.

An anthropometric study of the distal humerus

BACKGROUND The optimal articular shape for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty has not been defined because of a paucity of data quantifying the morphology of the normal distal humerus. This study defines the osseous anatomy and anatomic variability of the distal humerus using 3-dimensional imaging techniques. METHODS Three-dimensional surface models were created from computed tomography scans obtained from 50 unpaired human cadaveric elbows. Geometric centers of the capitellum and the trochlear groove defined the anatomic flexion-extension axis. A coordinate system was created, and the distal humerus was sectioned into 100 slices along this axis. The C line was defined as the line of best fit connecting the geometric centers of each of the slices. RESULTS The anatomic flexion-extension axis of the distal humerus was found to be an average of 1° ± 1° from the C line (range, 0°-3°) in the coronal plane and 2° ± 1° (range, 0°-7°) in the transverse plane. The average trochlear width was 22 ± 3 mm, and the average trochlear height was 18 ± 2 mm. The mean width of the capitellum was 17 ± 2 mm; the height was 23 ± 2 mm (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The difference in the capitellum width and height demonstrates that the capitellum is ellipsoid, not spherical. A data bank of humeral dimensions may be used for the development of future distal humeral hemiarthroplasty implants. A more anatomic implant may optimize kinematics and maximize contact area, thus minimizing contact stresses on the native ulna and radius.

The effect of radial head implant shape on radiocapitellar kinematics during in vitro forearm rotation

BACKGROUND A number of radial head implants are in clinical use for the management of radial head fractures and their sequelae. However, the optimal shape of a radial head implant to ensure proper tracking relative to the capitellum has not been established. This in vitro biomechanical study compared radiocapitellar joint kinematics for 3 radial head implant designs as well as the native head. METHODS Eight cadaveric upper extremities were tested using a forearm rotation simulator with the elbow at 90° of flexion. Motion of the radius relative to the capitellum was optically tracked. A stem was navigated into a predetermined location and cemented in place. Three unipolar implant shapes were tested: axisymmetric, reverse-engineered patient-specific, and population-based quasi-anatomic. The patient-specific and quasi-anatomic implants were derived from measurements performed on computed tomography models. RESULTS Medial-lateral and anterior-posterior translation of the radial head with respect to the capitellum varied with forearm rotation and radial head condition. A significant difference in medial-lateral (P = .03) and anterior-posterior (P = .03) translation was found between the native radial head and the 3 implants. No differences were observed among the radial head conditions except for a difference in medial-lateral translation between the axisymmetric and patient-specific implants (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS Radiocapitellar kinematics of the tested radial head implants were similar in all but one comparison, and all had different kinematics from the native radial head. Patient-specific radial head implants did not prove advantageous relative to conventional implant designs. The shape of the fixed stem unipolar radial head implants had little influence on radiocapitellar kinematics when optimally positioned in this testing model.

Effect of Radial Head Implant Shape on Joint Contact Area and Location During Static Loading

PURPOSE To examine the effect of implant shape on radiocapitellar joint contact area and location in vitro. METHODS We used 8 fresh-frozen cadaveric upper extremities. An elbow loading simulator examined joint contact in pronation, neutral rotation, and supination with the elbow at 90° flexion. Muscle tendons were attached to pneumatic actuators to allow for computer-controlled loading to achieve the desired forearm rotation. We performed testing with the native radial head, an axisymmetric implant, a reverse-engineered patient-specific implant, and a population-based quasi-anatomic implant. Implants were inserted using computer navigation. Contact area and location were quantified using a casting technique. RESULTS We found no significant difference between contact locations for the native radial head and the 3 implants. All of the implants had a contact area lower than the native radial head; however, only the axisymmetric implant was significantly different. There was no significant difference in contact area between implant shapes. CONCLUSIONS The similar contact areas and locations of the 3 implant designs suggest that the shape of the implant may not be important with respect to radiocapitellar joint contact mechanics when placed optimally using computer navigation. Further work is needed to explore the sensitivity of radial head implant malpositioning on articular contact. The lower contact area of the radial head implants relative to the native radial head is similar to previous benchtop studies and is likely the result of the greater stiffness of the implant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Radial head implant shape does not appear to have a pronounced influence on articular contact, and both axisymmetric and anatomic metal designs result in elevated cartilage stress relative to the intact state.

Measurements of the ispilateral capitellum can reliably predict the diameter of the radial head.

BACKGROUND There is no validated method to determine the correct diameter of a radial head implant when the radial head is too comminuted to function as a template or during revision surgery when the radial head has been previously excised. The purpose of this study was to determine if ipsilateral capitellar dimensions could be used to predict the diameter of the radial head; and hence to assist with implant selection. METHODS Computer tomography scans of 50 normal elbows were used to generate 3D models. Measurements of the radial head included the maximum (Dmax) and minimum (Dmin) outer diameters and the maximum (Dishmax) and minimum (Dishmin) articular dish diameters. Measurements of the humerus included the width of the capitellum (CAPwidth), and the width from the lateral aspect of the capitellum to the lateral trochlear ridge (CAP-TROCHridge). Relationships were determined with Pearson bivariate coefficients. RESULTS The mean radial head dimensions were Dmax = 24.7 ± 2.3 mm, Dmin = 23.5 ± 2.3 mm, Dishmax = 18.2 ± 1.9 mm and Dishmin = 16.8 ± 1.7 mm. The mean capitellar measurements were CAPwidth (18.4 ± 1.4 mm) and CAP-TROCHridge (23.0 ± 2.1 mm). The most significant correlations were found between Dmax and CAP-TROCHridge (R = .90, P < .001) and Dmin and CAP-TROCHridge (R = .90, P < .001). DISCUSSION Radiologic measurements of the capitellum are useful in the estimation of native radial head diameter. The CAP-TROCHridge measurement was very strongly correlated with both the maximum and minimum diameters of the radial head. This suggests that CAP-TROCHridge may be useful to accurately predict the native radial head diameter. These morphological relationships were plotted to produce an implant selection chart for radial head sizing applicable to any implant system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Basic science, anatomy study, CT imaging.

A biomechanical assessment of fixation methods for a coronoid prosthesis

BACKGROUND The coronoid process is an integral component for maintaining elbow joint stability. When fixation of a fracture is not possible, prosthetic replacement may be a feasible solution for restoring stability. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study was to compare fixation methods for a coronoid implant. METHODS A coronoid prosthesis was subjected to distally-directed tip loading after implantation using four fixation methods: press-fit, anterior-to-posterior screws, posterior-to-anterior screws, and cement. Testing was performed on seven fresh-frozen ulnae in a repeated-measures model. Rounds of cyclic loading were applied at 1 Hz, for 100 cycles, increased in 50 N increments up to a maximum of 400 N. Micro-motion of the implant was quantified using an optical-tracking system. Outcome variables included total displacement, distal translation, gapping, anterior translation and axial stem rotation. FINDINGS Cement fixation reduced implant micro-motion compared to screw fixation, while the greatest implant micro-motion was observed in press-fit fixation. Comparing screw-fixation techniques, posterior-anterior screws provided superior stability only in distal translation. The implant did not experience displacements exceeding 0.9 mm with screw or cement fixation. INTERPRETATION Cement fixation provides the best initial fixation for a coronoid implant. However, the stability provided by both methods of screw fixation may be sufficient to allow osseous integration to be achieved for long-term fixation. Large displacements were observed using the press-fit fixation technique, suggesting that modifications would need to be developed and tested before this technique could be recommended for clinical application.

A computer and image-assisted guidance system for radial head arthroplasty

AbstractAccurately positioning components during radial head arthroplasty is difficult due to the complex shape of the radial head. The objective of this study was to develop a navigation system fo...