Purpose: Menisci transfer axial loads, while increasing the load-bearing tibiofemoral contact area and decreasing tibiofemoral contact pressure (CP). Numerous clinical and experimental studies agree that an increased CP is one predominant indicator for post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the knee joint. However, due to the immense variability in experimental test setups and wide range of treatment possibilities in meniscus surgery, it is difficult to objectively assess their impact on the CP determination, which is clearly crucial for knee joint health. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate the influence of different meniscal injuries and their associated surgical treatments on the CP. Secondly, the influence of different test setups on CP measurements is assessed. On the basis of these results, we established the basis for recommendations for future investigations with the aim to determine CPs under different meniscal states.Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified through a systematic literature search in Cochrane, PubMed and Web of Science databases. Literature was searched through pre-defined keywords and medical subject headings.Results: This review indicates a significant increase of up to 235% in peak CP when comparing healthy joints and intact menisci with impaired knee joints, injured or resected menisci. In addition, different test setups were indicated to have major influences on CP: The variety of test setups ranged from standard material testing machines, including customized setups via horizontal and vertical knee joint simulators, through to robotic systems. Differences in applied axial knee joint loads ranged from 0 N up to 2,700 N and resulted unsurprisingly in significantly different peak CPs of between 0.1 and 12.06 MPa.Conclusion: It was shown that untreated traumatic meniscal tears result in an increased CP. Surgical repair intervention were able to restore the CP comparable to the healthy, native condition. Test setup differences and particularly axial joint loading variability also led to major CP differences. In conclusion, when focusing on CP measurements in the knee joint, transparent and traceable in vitro testing conditions are essential to allow researchers to make a direct comparison between future biomechanical investigations.

Rat models are widely used in preclinical studies investigating fracture healing. The interfragmentary movement at a fracture site is critical to the course of healing and therefore demands definition in order to aptly interpret the experimental results. Estimation of this movement requires knowledge of the fixation stiffness and loading. The characteristic loading for the rat femur has been estimated, but the stiffness of fixation used in rat studies has yet to be fully described. This study aimed to determine the 6 degree of freedom stiffness of four commonly used implants, two external fixators (RatExFix and UlmExFix), a locking plate, and a locking intramedullary nail, in all degrees of freedom and estimate the interfragmentary movement under specific physiological loads. The external fixator systems allow the greatest movement. Mounted 45° anterolateral on the femur, the RatExFix allows an average of 0.88 mm of motion in each anatomic direction while the stiffer UlmExFix allows about 0.6 mm of motion. The nail is far stiffer than the other implants investigated while the plate allows movement of an intermediate magnitude. Both the nail and plate demonstrate higher axial than shear stiffness. The relatively large standard deviations in external fixator shear motion imply strong dependence on bone axis alignment across the gap and the precise orientation of the specimen relative to the loading. The smaller standard deviation associated with the nail and plate results from improved alignment and minimization of the influence of rotational positioning of the specimen due to the reduced implant eccentricity relative to the specimen axis. These results show that the interfragmentary movement is complex and varies significantly between fixation devices but establishes a baseline for the evaluation of the results of different studies.

Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents as an excellent treatment for the osteoarthritic hip, demonstrating good survival rates. However, aseptic loosening and infection are the main causes of operative revision. The methods used in revision surgery are non-modular or modular THA implants. In addition to the abovementioned revision reasons for THA, this treatment could be associated with the possibility of femoral stem fracture, especially in the modular system. The topic of material failure has been focused on in the public media. The question arises as to how such media reports correlate with the published literature. The observed mentioned number of cases concerning a femoral stem fracture vary between one single case and up to 18.5% within a clinical study, thus presenting an inhomogeneous data situation with a large span. The specific aim of this systematic review is to establish facts and clarify the number of unforeseen events of a femoral stem fracture based on peer review articles and registry data. This clarification is important to us, as these media reports have led to uncertainty among patients. Methods A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Peer review articles in English and German, presenting original articles, meta-analyses, or case reports, were searched from the turn of the millennium up to December 2019. Only articles that reported a femoral stem component fracture, with content of clinical data as well as register data, were included. Relevant papers published after the defined research time frame were taken into account within the discussion. Results In total, 218 fractures of a femoral stem (141 primary and 77 revision THA) component could be identified within the selected literature. Most cases of a femoral stem fracture occurred in the modular THA implants compared to the non-modular stems. Regarding revision THA, in summary, 77 implants, presenting 23 non-modular and 54 modular implants, failed by means of femoral stem fracture. A review of 11 National Joint Registries shows a revision rate between 0.04 and 0.05% in only 2 registers according to the specific subject of a femoral stem fracture. For the remaining 9 registers, however, detailed information is lacking and only nonspecific information such as a generic “implant failure” or “other reason” (which can cover a multitude of causes) is supplied. Conclusion A femoral stem fracture presents a devastating complication for the patient, the surgeon as well as for the manufacturer of the implant. Modular THA implants play an increasingly valuable role concerning restoration of individual anatomy in modern THA revision surgery, especially within complex cases. Regarding revision procedures, data suggests a lower risk of femoral stem fracture for modular implants compared to primary procedures, while the risk of fracture for non-modular implants seems to increase during revision. Ultimately, it cannot be proven whether this is actually applicable, since the absolute number of implanted prosthesis systems is not known. Various implant-, patient-, and surgeon-related factors may lead to these reported femoral stem fractures. However, this systematic review suggests that this is, in general, a rare complication.

Purpose The purpose of this in-vitro study was to examine the kinematics of an artificial, free-floating medial meniscus replacement device under dynamic loading situations and different knee joint states. Methods A dynamic knee simulator was used to perform dynamic loading exercises on three neutrally aligned and three 10° valgus aligned (simulating a medial openwedge high tibial osteotomy - MOWHTO) left human cadaveric knee joints. The knee joints were tested in three states (intact, conventional notchplasty, extended notchplasty) while 11 randomised exercises were simulated (jump landing, squatting, tibial rotation and axial ground impacts at 10°, 30° and 60° knee joint flexion) to investigate the knee joint and implant kinematics by means of rigidly attached reflective marker sets and an according motion analysis. Results The maximum implant translation relative to the tibial plateau was < 13 mm and the maximum implant rotation was < 19° for all exercises. Both, the notchplasties and the valgus knee alignment did not affect the device kinematics. Conclusions The results of the present in-vitro study showed that the non-anchored free-floating device remains within the medial knee joint gap under challenging dynamic loading situations without indicating any luxation tendencies. This also provides initial benchtop evidence that the device offers suitable stability and kinematic behaviour to be considered a potential alternative to meniscus allograft transplantation in combination with an MOWHTO, potentially expanding the patient collective in the future.