Evaluating the validity of lightweight talar replacement designs: rational models and topologically optimized models

Yeokyung Kang, Seongjin Kim, Jungsung Kim, Jin Woo Lee, Jong Chul Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Total talar replacement is normally stable and satisfactory. We studied a rational scaffold talus model for each size range created through topology optimization (TO) and comparatively evaluated a topologically optimized scaffold bone talus model using a finite element analysis (FEA). We hypothesized that the rational scaffold would be more effective for application to the actual model than the topologically optimized scaffold. Methods: Size specification for the rational model was performed via TO and inner scaffold simplification. The load condition for worst-case selection reflected the peak point according to the ground reaction force tendency, and the load directions “plantar 10°” (P10), “dorsi 5°” (D5), and “dorsi 10°” (D10) were applied to select worst-case scenarios among the P10, D5, and D10 positions (total nine ranges) of respective size specifications. FEA was performed on each representative specification-standard model, reflecting a load of 5340 N. Among the small bone models selected as the worst-case, an arbitrary size was selected, and the validity of the standard model was evaluated. The standard model was applied to the rational structure during validity evaluation, and the TO model reflecting the internal structure derived by the TO of the arbitrary model was implemented. Result: In worst-case selection, the highest peak von Mises stress (PVMS) was calculated from the minimum D5 model (532.11 MPa). Thereafter, FEA revealed peak von Mises stress levels of 218.01 MPa and 565.35 MPa in the rational and topologically optimized models, respectively, confirming that the rational model yielded lower peak von Mises stress. The weight of the minimum model was reduced from 1106 g to 965.4 g after weight reduction through rational scaffold application. Conclusion: The rational inner-scaffold-design method is safer than topologically optimized scaffold design, and three types of rational scaffold, according to each size range, confirmed that all sizes of the talus within the anatomical dimension could be covered, which was a valid result in the total talar replacement design. Accordingly, we conclude that an implant design meeting the clinical design requirements, including patient customization, weight reduction, and mechanical stability, should be possible by applying a rational inner scaffold without performing TO design. The scaffold model weight was lower than that of the solid model, and the safety was also verified through FEA.

Original languageEnglish
Article number10
JournalBiomaterials Research
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022 Dec

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors wish to acknowledge Corentec, an implant specialist company, for their help with the creation of the figures included in this paper. This research was supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy?s Industrial Innovation Infrastructure Project (Project name: Infrastructure Project Support; Development and clinical demonstration of artificial shoulder/ankle joint parts based on bio-metal 3D printing technology, P0013646).

Funding Information:
This research was supported by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy’s Industrial Innovation Infrastructure Project (Project name: Infrastructure Project Support; Development and clinical demonstration of artificial shoulder/ankle joint parts based on bio-metal 3D printing technology, P0013646).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ceramics and Composites
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating the validity of lightweight talar replacement designs: rational models and topologically optimized models'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this