The conical stem tibial design of total ankle replacement (TAR) has high implant-bone micromotion. This may lead to aseptic loosening which can be avoided by improving the tibial design. The objective was to propose the best stem design parameters to reduce implant-bone micromotion along with minimizing stress shielding using an integrated Finite Element-Multi Criteria Decision Making (FE-MCDM) approach. FE models of implanted tibia bones were prepared by changing the height of the stem, the diameter of the stem, and the slant of the stem. Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarities to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Evaluation based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS), and VIseKriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) MCDM techniques with equal weights for micromotion and stress shielding were considered. The micromotion and stress shielding were greater when the height of the stem was increased. Whereas, the increase in diameter and slant affected them marginally. The best-performing design was the Model with stem height 6 mm (diameter 6.4 mm and slant 4°) and after that was the Model with stem height 8 mm (diameter 6.4 mm and slant 4°), and then the Model with stem height 10 mm (diameter 6.4 mm and slant 4°). The height of the stem is the most important stem design parameter. Shorter height, moderate thickness, and moderate slanting stem designs are recommended.
SprouleJAChinTAminA, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the mobility total ankle arthroplasty system: early results from a prospective multicenter study. Foot Ankle Int2013; 34: 491–497.
2.
KerkhoffYRAKosseNMLouwerensJWK. Short term results of the mobility total ankle system: clinical and radiographic outcome. Foot Ankle Surg2015; 22: 152–157.
3.
WoodPLRKarskiMTWatmoughP. Total ankle replacement: the results of 100 mobility total ankle replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br2010; 92: 958–962.
4.
RippsteinPFHuberMCoetzeeJC, et al. Total ankle replacement with use of a new three-component implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 1426–1435.
5.
SummersJCBediHS.Reoperation and patient satisfaction after the mobility total ankle arthroplasty. ANZ J Surg2013; 83: 371–375.
6.
MuirDAoinaJHongT, et al. The outcome of the mobility total ankle replacement at a mean of four years. Bone Joint J2009; 95: 1366–1371.
SundfeldtMCarlssonLVJohanssonCB, et al. Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop2006; 77: 177–197.
9.
SøballeK.Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation: mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthop1993; 64: 1–58.
10.
JastyMBragdonCBurkeD, et al. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79: 707–714.
11.
de Oliveira Salgado RodriguesDS. Biomechanics of the total ankle arthroplasty: stress analysis and bone remodeling. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Técnico Lisboa, https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395145522891/Tese.pdf (2013, accessed 1 October 2023).
12.
Abu-AmerYDarwechIClohisyJC.Aseptic loosening of total joint replacements: mechanisms underlying osteolysis and potential therapies. Arthritis Res Ther2007; 9: 1–7.
13.
LeeKTParkYUJegalH.The mobility total ankle replacement: techniques and pitfalls. Foot Ankle Clin2012; 17: 637–645.
14.
RoukisTSBerletGCBibboC, et al. Primary and revision total ankle replacement: evidence-based surgical management. Cham: Springer, 2015.
15.
SopherRS.Muscle architecture, loading and joint replacement of the ankle. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, 2017.
16.
YuJZhangCChenWM, et al. Finite-element analysis of the influence of tibial implant fixation design of total ankle replacement on bone-implant interfacial biomechanical performance. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2020; 28: 1–10.
17.
Quevedo GonzálezFJSteinemanBDSturnickDR, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part II: influence of loading and fixation design on tibial bone–implant interaction. J Orthop Res2021; 39: 103–111.
18.
McinnesKAYoungerASEOxlandTR. Initial instability in total ankle replacement: a cadaveric biomechanical investigation of the STAR and agility prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96: e147.
19.
Jyoti, MondalSGhoshR. Biomechanical analysis of three popular tibial designs for TAR with different implant-bone interfacial conditions and bone qualities: a finite element study. Med Eng Phys2022; 104: 103812.
20.
MondalSGhoshR. The effects of implant orientations and implant–bone interfacial conditions on potential causes of failure of tibial component due to total ankle replacement. J Med Biol Eng2019; 39: 541–551.
21.
TerrierALarreaXGuerdatJ, et al. Development and experimental validation of a finite element model of total ankle replacement. J Biomech2014; 47: 742–745.
22.
SopherRSAmisAACalderJD, et al. Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains. Med Eng Phys2017; 42: 80–90.
23.
JyotiGhoshR. The role of the depth of resection of the distal tibia on biomechanical performance of the tibial component for TAR: a finite element analysis with three implant designs. Med Eng Phys2023; 119: 104034.
24.
OzsahinIOzsahinDUUzunB. Applications of multi-criteria decision-making theories in healthcare and biomedical engineering. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, Elsevier, 2021.
25.
BhaskarASKhanA. Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications. Expert Syst Appl2022; 209: 118268.
26.
VargheseBShortDPenmetsaR, et al. Computed-tomography-based finite-element models of long bones can accurately capture strain response to bending and torsion. J Biomech2011; 44: 1374–1379.
GuitouniAMartelJ-M. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res1998; 109: 501–521.
36.
ŠaparauskasJZavadskasEKTurskisZ. Selection of facade’s alternatives of commercial and public buildings based on multiple criteria. Int J Strateg Prop Manag2011; 15: 189–203.
GhorabaeeMKZavadskasEKOlfatL, et al. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Inform2015; 26: 435–451.
39.
OpricovicSTzengGH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res2004; 156: 445–455.
40.
DunbarMJFongJWWilsonDA, et al. Longitudinal migration and inducible displacement of the mobility total ankle system: radiostereometry in 23 patients with 2 years of follow-up. Acta Orthop2012; 83: 394–400.
41.
MondalSGhoshR. Influence of cancellous bone material and dead zone on stress-strain, bone stimulus and bone remodelling around the tibia for total ankle replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2020; 235: 185–196.
42.
AitkenGKBourneRBFinlayJB, et al. Indentation stiffness of the cancellous bone in the distal human tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res1985; 201: 264–270.
43.
WoodPLRCrawfordLASunejaR, et al. Total ankle replacement for rheumatoid ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Clin2007; 12: 497–508.
44.
HuiskesRWeinansHVan RietbergenB. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res1992; 274: 124–134.
45.
HuiskesRWeinansHGrootenboerHJ, et al. Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech1987; 20: 1135–1150.
46.
LeeKTLeeYKYoungKW, et al. Perioperative complications of the mobility total ankle system: comparison with the Hintegra total ankle system. J Orthop Sci2010; 15: 317–322.
47.
LeeKTLeeYKYoungKW, et al. Perioperative complications and learning curve of the mobility total ankle system. Foot Ankle Int2013; 34: 210–214.
48.
Mohd MoideenISLimCTYeowRCH, et al. Polka dot cementless talar component in enhancing total ankle replacement fixation: a parametric study using the finite element analysis approach. Comput Biol Med2022; 141: 105142.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
