Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Technical advance

A modified and enhanced test setup for biomechanical investigations of the hindfoot, for example in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis

Authors: Julia Evers, Martin Schulze, Dominic Gehweiler, Martin Lakemeier, Michael J. Raschke, Dirk Wähnert, Sabine Ochman

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

Background

Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis (TTCA) using intramedullary nails is a salvage procedure for many diseases in the ankle and subtalar joint. Despite “newly described intramedullary nails” with specific anatomical shapes there still remain major complications regarding this procedure. The following study presents a modified biomechanical test setup for investigations of the hindfoot.

Methods

Nine fresh-frozen specimens from below the human knee were anaysed using the Hindfoot Arthrodesis Nail (Synthes) instrument. Quasi-static biomechanical testing was performed for internal/external rotation, varus/valgus and dorsal/plantar flexion using a modified established setup (physiological load entrance point, sledge at lever arm to apply pure moments). Additionally, a 3D optical measurement system was added to allow determination of interbony movements.

Results

The mean torsional range of motion (ROM) calculated from the actuator data of a material testing machine was 10.12° (SD 0.6) compared to 10° (SD 2.83) as measured with the Optotrak® system (between tibia and calcaneus). The Optotrak showed 40 % more rotation in the talocrural joint.

Mean varus/valgus ROM from the material testing flexion machine was seen to be 5.65° (SD 1.84) in comparison to 2.82° (SD 0.46) measured with the Optotrak. The subtalar joint showed a 70 % higher movement when compared to the talocrural joint.

Mean ROM in the flexion test was 5.3° (SD 1.45) for the material testing machine and 2.1° (SD 0.39) for the Optotrak. The movement in the talocrural joint was 3 times higher compared to the subtalar joint.

Conclusion

The modified test setup presented here for the hindfoot allows a physiological biomechanical loading. Moreover, a detailed characterisation of the bone-implant constructs is possible.

Grass R, Rammelt S, Heineck J, Zwipp H. Hindfoot arthrodesis resulting from retrograde medullary pinning. Orthopade. 2005;34(12):1238–44. doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0865-y.CrossRefPubMed

Thomas RL, Sathe V, Habib SI. The use of intramedullary nails in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(1):1–7. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-20-01-001.PubMed

Mann MR, Parks BG, Pak SS, Miller SD. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a biomechanical analysis of the rotational stability of the Biomet Ankle Arthrodesis Nail. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(9):731–3.CrossRefPubMed

Means KR, Parks BG, Nguyen A, Schon LC. Intramedullary nail fixation with posterior-to-anterior compared to transverse distal screw placement for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a biomechanical investigation. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(12):1137–42.CrossRefPubMed

Budnar VM, Hepple S, Harries WG, Livingstone JA, Winson I. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis with a curved, interlocking, intramedullary nail. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(12):1085–92. doi:10.3113/FAI.2010.1085.CrossRefPubMed

Devries JG, Philbin TM, Hyer CF. Retrograde intramedullary nail arthrodesis for avascular necrosis of the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(11):965–72. doi:10.3113/FAI.2010.0965.CrossRefPubMed

Haaker R, Kohja EY, Wojciechowski M, Gruber G. Tibio-talo-calcaneal arthrodesis by a retrograde intramedullary nail. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2010;12(3):245–9.PubMed

Rammelt S, Pyrc J, Agren PH, Hartsock LA, Cronier P, Friscia DA, et al. Tibiotalocalcaneal fusion using the hindfoot arthrodesis nail: a multicenter study. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(9):1245–55. doi:10.1177/1071100713487526.CrossRefPubMed

Klos K, Wahnert D, Gueorguiev B, Schwieger K, Hofmann GO, Windolf M, et al. Development of a technique for cement augmentation of nailed tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis constructs. Clin Biomech. 2010;25(6):576–81. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.03.006.CrossRef

10.

Muckley T, Eichorn S, Hoffmeier K, von Oldenburg G, Speitling A, Hoffmann GO, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of primary stiffness of tibiotalocalcaneal fusion with intramedullary nails. Foot Ankle Int. 2007;28(2):224–31. doi:10.3113/FAI.2007.0224.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Muckley T, Hoffmeier K, Klos K, Petrovitch A, von Oldenburg G, Hofmann GO. Angle-stable and compressed angle-stable locking for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis with retrograde intramedullary nails. Biomechanical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):620–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00010.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Klos K, Gueorguiev B, Schwieger K, Frober R, Brodt S, Hofmann GO, et al. Comparison of calcaneal fixation of a retrograde intramedullary nail with a fixed-angle spiral blade versus a fixed-angle screw. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(12):1212–8. doi:10.3113/FAI.2009.1212.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Haraguchi N, Armiger RS, Myerson MS, Campbell JT, Chao EY. Prediction of three-dimensional contact stress and ligament tension in the ankle during stance determined from computational modeling. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(2):177–85. doi:10.3113/FAI.2009.0177.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Jenkyn TR, Anas K, Nichol A. Foot segment kinematics during normal walking using a multisegment model of the foot and ankle complex. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131(3):034504. doi:10.1115/1.2907750.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Prachgosin T, Chong DY, Leelasamran W, Smithmaitrie P, Chatpun S. Medial longitudinal arch biomechanics evaluation during gait in subjects with flexible flatfoot. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2015;17(4):121–30.PubMed

16.

Schulze M, Hartensuer R, Gehweiler D, Holscher U, Raschke MJ, Vordemvenne T. Evaluation of a robot-assisted testing system for multisegmental spine specimens. J Biomech. 2012;45(8):1457–62. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.02.013.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Santangelo JR, Glisson RR, Garras DN, Easley ME. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a biomechanical comparision of multiplanar external fixation with intramedullary fixation. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(9):936–41. doi:10.3113/FAI.2008.0936.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Attal R, Maestri V, Doshi HK, Onder U, Smekal V, Blauth M, et al. The influence of distal locking on the need for fibular plating in intramedullary nailing of distal metaphyseal tibiofibular fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(3):385–9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32185.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Dailey HL, Daly CJ, Galbraith JG, Cronin M, Harty JA. The Flexible Axial Stimulation (FAST) intramedullary nail provides interfragmentary micromotion and enhanced torsional stability. Clin Biomech. 2013;28(5):579–85. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.04.006.CrossRef

20.

Wahnert D, Hoffmeier KL, von Oldenburg G, Frober R, Hofmann GO, Muckley T. Internal fixation of type-C distal femoral fractures in osteoporotic bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(6):1442–52. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01722.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Wahnert D, Stolarczyk Y, Hoffmeier KL, Raschke MJ, Hofmann GO, Muckley T. Long-term stability of angle-stable versus conventional locked intramedullary nails in distal tibia fractures. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:66. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Alfahd U, Roth SE, Stephen D, Whyne CM. Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary nail and blade plate fixation for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(10):703–8.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bennett GL, Cameron B, Njus G, Saunders M, Kay DB. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a biomechanical assessment of stability. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(7):530–6.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Berend ME, Glisson RR, Nunley JA. A biomechanical comparison of intramedullary nail and crossed lag screw fixation for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(10):639–43.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Chiodo CP, Acevedo JI, Sammarco VJ, Parks BG, Boucher HR, Myerson MS, et al. Intramedullary rod fixation compared with blade-plate-and-screw fixation for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis: a biomechanical investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(12):2425–8.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Fragomen AT, Meyers KN, Davis N, Shu H, Wright T, Rozbruch SR. A biomechanical comparison of micromotion after ankle fusion using 2 fixation techniques: intramedullary arthrodesis nail or Ilizarov external fixator. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(3):334–41. doi:10.3113/FAI.2008.0334.CrossRefPubMed

Title: A modified and enhanced test setup for biomechanical investigations of the hindfoot, for example in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis
Authors: Julia Evers
Martin Schulze
Dominic Gehweiler
Martin Lakemeier
Michael J. Raschke
Dirk Wähnert
Sabine Ochman
Publication date: 01-12-2016
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1177-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

A modified and enhanced test setup for biomechanical investigations of the hindfoot, for example in tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Role of magnetic resonance imaging in acute spinal trauma: a pictorial review

A systematic review of double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abductor pollicis longus tendon interposition for arthrosis of the first carpo-metacarpal joint. Long-term results

Intra-articular injection of photo-activated platelet-rich plasma in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomized controlled pilot study

Does Goal Attainment Scaling improve satisfaction regarding performance of activities of younger knee arthroplasty patients? Study protocol of the randomized controlled ACTION trial

Minimally invasive, endoscopic Achilles tendon reconstruction using semitendinosus and gracilis tendons with Endobutton stabilization