A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Posterior augmented glenoid implants require less bone removal and generate lower stresses: a finite element analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Glenoid retroversion can potentially be corrected with standard or augmented glenoid implants, and this study aimed to assess and compare their effectiveness and impact on bone.
  • Various implant configurations were tested on models of arthritic scapulae to measure bone removal and stresses in the surrounding materials.
  • Results showed that augmented wedged implants preserved more bone and minimized stress compared to standard implants, suggesting they may be a better option for correcting glenoid retroversion.

Article Abstract

Hypothesis: Glenoid retroversion can be corrected with standard glenoid implants after anterior-side asymmetric reaming or by using posterior augmented glenoid implants with built-in corrections. The purpose of this study was to compare 2 augmented glenoid designs with a standard glenoid design, measure the amount of bone removed, and compute the stresses generated in the cement and bone.

Methods: Finite element models of 3 arthritic scapulae with varying severities of posterior glenoid wear were each implanted with 4 different implant configurations: standard glenoid implant in neutral alignment with asymmetric reaming, standard glenoid implant in retroversion, glenoid implant augmented with a posterior wedge in neutral alignment, and glenoid implant augmented with a posterior step in neutral alignment. The volume of cortical and cancellous bone removed and the percentage of implant back surface supported by cortical bone were measured. Stresses and strains in the implant, cement, and glenoid bone were computed.

Results: Asymmetric reaming for the standard implant in neutral version required the most bone removal, resulted in the lowest percentage of back surface supported by cortical bone, and generated strain levels that risked damage to the most bone volume. The wedged implant removed less bone, had a significantly greater percentage of the back surface supported by cortical bone, and generated strain levels that risked damage to significantly less bone volume.

Conclusions: The wedged glenoid implants appear to have various advantages over the standard implant for the correction of retroversion.

Level Of Evidence: Basic Science Study; Computer Modeling.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.003DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

glenoid implants
16
standard glenoid
16
glenoid implant
16
glenoid
13
augmented glenoid
12
asymmetric reaming
12
neutral alignment
12
surface supported
12
supported cortical
12
cortical bone
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!