title: Prosthetic radial head stem pull-out as a mode of failure: a biomechanical study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Press-fit cementless radial head implant longevity relies on adequate bone ingrowth. Failed implant osseointegration remains a clinical concern and has been shown to lead to prosthetic failure. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that implants with sufficient initial press-fit stability would be less likely to fail due to implant pull-out, as demonstrated by an increasing amount of energy required to remove the prosthesis from the canal.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ten cadaveric radii were implanted with five sizes (6-10 mm in 1-mm increments) of grit-blasted, cementless radial head stems. A customised slap hammer was used to measure the energy required to remove each stem. Stem-bone micromotion was also measured.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The suboptimally sized stem (Max - 1) (i.e. 1 mm undersized) required less energy (0.5 ± 0 J) to pull out than the optimally sized stem (Max) (1.7 ± 0.3 J) (p = 0.008). The optimally sized stem demonstrated greater initial stability (45 ± 7 μm) than the suboptimally sized stem (79 ± 12 μm) (p = 0.004).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This investigation demonstrates the importance of obtaining adequate press-fit stability for the prevention of radial head stem pull-out failure. These data add to the relatively scant knowledge in the literature regarding radial head biomechanics. The energy required to remove a prosthetic radial head ingrowth stem decreases in conjunction with diameter. The use of an inadequately sized stem increases the stem's micromotion as well as the risk of prosthetic loosening due to pull-out.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
authors.forename: Dave
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Shukla
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Fitzsimmons
authors.forename: Kai-Nan
authors.initials: KN
authors.lastname: An
authors.forename: Shawn
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: O'Driscoll
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D057929:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Elbow / Q000295:instrumentation*; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D002102:Cadaver; D058569:Elbow Prosthesis; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011884:Radius / Q000601:surgery*
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jan;21(1):92-7
references.pmid: 21856175
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Jul;(208):108-13
references.pmid: 3720113
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2010 Jun;25(5):422-6
references.pmid: 20303631
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jul;20(5):717-22
references.pmid: 21324417
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2192-200
references.pmid: 17015596
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Sep-Oct;18(5):785-90
references.pmid: 19427236
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Feb;86(2):274-80
references.pmid: 14960671
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Jul;21(7):949-54
references.pmid: 21831662
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Sep;(210):80-96
references.pmid: 3757378
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):27-32
references.pmid: 20932781
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1559-64
references.pmid: 22445160
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Aug;83(8):1201-11
references.pmid: 11507129
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Oct;19(7):965-72
references.pmid: 20846619