The effect of humeral implant thickness and canal fill on interface contact and bone stresses in the proximal humerus

• Main Authors: Stephanie Synnott, MESc, G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD, Jacob M. Reeves, PhD, James A. Johnson, PhD, George S. Athwal, MD, FRCSC
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-09-01
• Series: JSES International
• Subjects: Short stem; total shoulder arthroplasty; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; stress shielding; bone adaptations; bone remodeling
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638321001559

Background: Stem size is an important element for successful time zero primary fixation of a press-fit humeral stem in shoulder arthroplasty. Little basic science research, however, has been conducted on the effects of implant thickness and canal fill on load transfer, contact, and stress shielding. The purpose of this finite element study was to determine the effects of varying stem thickness on bone contact, bone stresses, and bone resorption owing to stress shielding. Methods: Three generic short-stem implant models were developed and varied based on cross-sectional thickness (thinner – 8 mm, medium – 12 mm, thicker – 16 mm). Using a finite element model, three outcome measures were determined (1) the amount of bone-to-implant contact, (2) changes in cortical and trabecular bone stresses from the intact state, and (3) changes in cortical and trabecular strain energy densities which can predict bone remodeling or stress shielding. Results: Increasing the size of the humeral stem had no significant effects on bone-to-implant contact during loading (P > .07). The thinner implant with the lowest canal fill ratio produced significantly lower changes in stress from the intact state in both cortical and trabecular bone (P < .002). In addition, the thinner implant resulted in a substantially lower volume of bone predicted to stress shield and resorb when compared with the medium and thicker stems. Discussion: The results demonstrate that thinner implants and lower canal fill may be beneficial over thicker sizes, provided equal initial fixation can be achieved. The thinner implant has a greater degree of load sharing and increases the mechanical load placed on surrounding bone, reducing the risk of stress shielding and bone resorption.