Original Research

Biomechanical Evaluation of All-Polyethylene Pegged Bony Ingrowth Glenoid Fixation Techniques on Implant Micromotion

Am J Orthop. 2016 May;45(4):E211-E216

References

1. Neer CS 2nd, Watson KC, Stanton FJ. Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):319-337.

2. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, O’Driscoll SW, Torchia ME, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of ingrowth total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(6):507-513.

3. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.

4. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.

5. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859-863.

6. Edwards TB, Labriola JE, Stanley RJ, O’Connor DP, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components using modern cementing techniques: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):251-257.

7. Gartsman GM, Elkousy HA, Warnock KM, Edwards TB, O’Connor DP. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):252-257.

8. Klepps S, Chiang AS, Miller S, Jiang CY, Hazrati Y, Flatow EL. Incidence of early radiolucent glenoid lines in patients having total shoulder replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(435):118-125.

9. Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd. The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(7):1174-1182.

10. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Nyffeler RW, Gerber C. Loosening performance of cemented glenoid prosthesis design pairs. Clin Biomech. 2001;16(2):144-150.

11. Walch G, Young AA, Melis B, Gazielly D, Loew M, Boileau P. Results of a convex-back cemented keeled glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis: multicenter study with a follow-up greater than 5 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(3):385-394.

12. Gregory T, Hansen U, Taillieu F, et al. Glenoid loosening after total shoulder arthroplasty: an in vitro CT-scan study. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(12):1589-1595.

13. Arnold RM, High RR, Grosshans KT, Walker CW, Fehringer EV. Bone presence between the central peg’s radial fins of a partially cemented pegged all poly glenoid component suggest few radiolucencies. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):315-321.

14. Churchill RS, Boorman RS, Fehringer EV, Matsen FA 3rd. Glenoid cementing may generate sufficient heat to endanger the surrounding bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(419):76-79.

15. De Wilde L, Dayerizadeh N, De Neve F, Basamania C, Van Tongel A. Fully uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(10):e1-e7.

16. Churchill RS, Zellmer C, Zimmers HJ, Ruggero R. Clinical and radiographic analysis of a partially cemented glenoid implant: five-year minimum follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1091-1097.

17. Groh GI. Survival and radiographic analysis of a glenoid component with a cementless fluted central peg. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1265-1268.

18. Vidil A, Valenti P, Guichoux F, Barthas JH. CT scan evaluation of glenoid component fixation: a prospective study of 27 minimally cemented shoulder arthroplasties. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012;23(5):521-525.

19. Wirth MA, Loredo R, Garcia G, Rockwood CA Jr, Southworth C, Iannotti JP. Total shoulder arthroplasty with an all-polyethylene pegged bone-ingrowth glenoid component: a clinical and radiographic outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):260-267.

20. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Mechanical testing of shoulder prostheses and recommendations for glenoid design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(4):323-331.

21. Hoenig MP, Loeffler B, Brown S, et al. Reverse glenoid component fixation: is a posterior screw necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(4):544-549.

22. Sarah J, Sanjay G, Sanjay S, et al. Failure mechanism of the all-polyethylene glenoid implant. J Biomech. 2010;43(4):714-719.

23. Suárez DR, Nerkens W, Valstar ER, Rozing PM, van Keulen F. Interface micromotions increase with less-conforming cementless glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(4):474-482.

24. ASTM International. Standard Test Methods for Dynamic Evaluation of Glenoid Loosening or Disassociation. West Conshocken, PA: ASTM International; 2012. ASTM F2028-08.

25. Anglin C, Tolhurst P, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Glenoid cancellous bone strength and modulus. J Biomech. 1999;32(10):1091-1097.

26. Anglin C, Wyss U, Pichora D. Glenohumeral contact forces. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214(6):637-644.

27. Wirth MA, Korvick DL, Basamania CJ, Toro F, Aufdemorte TB, Rockwood CA Jr. Radiologic, mechanical, and histologic evaluation of 2 glenoid prosthesis designs in a canine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(2):140-148.

28. Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;(208):108-113.

29. Ramamurti BS, Orr TE, Bragdon CR, Lowenstein JD, Jasty M, Harris WH. Factors influencing stability at the interface between a porous surface and cancellous bone: a finite element analysis of a canine in vivo micromotion experiment. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;36(2):274-280.

30. Şahin S, Cehreli MC, Yalçın E. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses—a review. J Dent. 2002;30(7-8):271-282.

Glenoid Component Translation

Mean (SD) glenoid translation was significantly lower for fully cemented fixation, 0.10 (0.04) mm, than for interference-fit fixation, 0.13 (0.04) mm (P < .001), and hybrid cement fixation, 0.13 (0.03) mm (P < .001), with all time points considered. There was no significant difference between interference-fit and hybrid fixation (P = .343). Initial translation at cycle 1 was significantly higher for interference-fit and hybid fixation than for fully cemented fixation.

Discussion

Despite advances in glenoid component design, glenoid loosening remains the most common cause of anatomical TSA failure. Recent implants have been designed to take advantage of an all-polyethylene component while providing long-lasting fixation through bony ingrowth into a central peg. In a study of the hybrid cementation technique drescribed here, Groh¹⁷ found no glenoid loosening or radiolucent lines but discovered fingerlike projections of bone between the flanges of the implant in 24 (29%) of 83 cases. Churchill and colleagues¹⁶ also reported bony ingrowth into the central peg in 15 (75%) of 20 patients. Furthermore, Arnold and colleagues13 reported complete bony ingrowth (6/6 inter-fin compartments) in 23 (71%) of 35 shoulders at a mean of 43 months. Wirth and colleagues¹⁹ reported increased radiodensity between the flanges of the central peg in 30 of 44 cases (68%) and osteolysis around the central peg in 3 of 44 cases (7%) at 3 years.

There are also reports of successful bony ingrowth associated with all-polyethylene components implanted without cement. In a canine study using an early ingrowth implant design, Wirth and colleagues²⁷ showed that, though initial fixation was superior with a cemented, keeled implant, pullout strength of the uncemented, pegged implant improved over time and eventually far surpassed that of the cemented, keeled implant owing to both the loosening of the cemented component and the bony ingrowth into the central peg component. Furthermore, Anglin and colleagues¹⁰ confirmed that component micromotion was lower with pegged glenoid components than with keeled components in a biomechanical model. De Wilde and colleagues¹⁵ recently reported on a series of uncemented, central fluted peg glenoids implanted in 34 patients followed clinically and with computed tomography for a minimum of 24 months. The investigators found bony ingrowth into the central peg in 27 (79%) of 34 patients and no signs of loosening in 30 (88%) of 34 patients. Incomplete lucencies around 1 or 2 peripheral pegs were found in 2 (6%) of 34 patients, and complete lucencies around 2 or more peripheral pegs were found in 2 (6%) of 34 patients. However, there was no statistical difference in clinical outcome between patients with and without loosening.

With this type of implant, initial fixation that provides stability while minimizing micromotion under biomechanical loading likely is crucial for attaining bony growth within the central peg flanges. To our knowledge, this is the first biomechanical study to compare micromotion using 3 different fixation methods with a central fluted peg glenoid component design. Of all these fixation methods, fully cemented fixation yielded the most stable glenoid throughout testing with respect to the evaluated parameters. However, this method is not necessarily clinically applicable, as a fully cemented glenoid would inhibit any bony growth within the central flange, which is necessary for long-term biological fixation. Our data showed that, though glenoid distraction was significantly lower with hybrid cement fixation, this fixation method exhibited significantly higher glenoid compression. In addition, there were no significant differences between glenoid components with hybrid fixation and glenoid components with interference-fit fixation with respect to component translation in the superior-inferior direction. These findings may indicate that initial fixation is not significantly improved by the addition of cement to the peripheral pegs in a glenoid component with a central fluted peg design.

The interference fit of the central peg is primarily responsible for conferring long-term implant stability,^13,27 which is ultimately achieved by bony formation between the flutes of the peg. Other authors have reported that, for bony ingrowth to occur, micromotion between the bone–implant interface must not exceed 20 to 150 µm.^28-30 Other than for interference-fit distraction at more than 1000 cycles and hybrid cement fixation compression at each time point throughout testing, our data fall within the reported upper limits of micromotion to support bony ingrowth. Increased micromotion in the interference-fit fixation group is seen at later time points and may be caused by the inability to simulate the potential fixation gained from bony ingrowth allowed with this surgical technique. Research is needed to further explain this increase in distraction.

Results from this study must be interpreted with caution because of limitations of the in vitro testing methodology. This biomechanical model using bone substitute characterizes glenoid fixation at time zero, directly after implantation, followed by repetitive cyclic loading simulating 5 years of implant service. This differs from the clinical scenario in which the shoulder undergoes postoperative immobilization or protected motion during which the early phases of bony remodeling are likely occurring. Furthermore, simulation of 5 years of implant service may not be necessary for an implant that is expected to achieve ultimate fixation by bony ingrowth within the first several months after implantation. Use of this implant without cement is classified off-label, and surgeons should take this into consideration during implantation. Last, this study could not simulate the effect of bony ingrowth on fixation, though our experimental technique of cementing the central peg may be a gross approximation of a fully ingrown central peg and its expected rigid fixation.

Fully cemented fixation of a polyethylene glenoid is superior to hybrid cement fixation and interference-fit fixation with respect to early glenoid micromotion. However, the long-term stability of a fully cemented polyethylene glenoid component remains a clinical concern, as fixation is achieved by bony ingrowth around the central fluted peg of the implant. In this study, interference-fit and hybrid fixation had equivocal component micromotion in biomechanical testing. Our findings suggest that cementation of the peripheral pegs confers no additional initial stability over an uncemented interference-fit technique in a biomechanical model. More research is needed to further evaluate interference-fit fixation as a viable option for implantation of a central fluted, all-polyethylene glenoid component.