Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2026

14:31
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
Published on: July 15, 2009
Computer model analysis of the Swanson and Sutter metacarpophalangeal joint implants
N W Williams1, J M Penrose, D R Hose
1Department of Plastic Surgery, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK. cybermanus@aol.com
Journal of Hand Surgery (Edinburgh, Scotland)
|November 4, 2000
Summary
The Swanson implant shows lower stress and is predicted to be more durable than the Sutter implant for finger joint replacement. The Sutter implant
Area of Science:
- Biomaterials Engineering
- Orthopedic Biomechanics
- Medical Device Design
Background:
- Silastic finger metacarpophalangeal joint implants are used to restore function.
- Understanding implant behavior under physiological loading is crucial for improving patient outcomes.
- Previous studies have not fully elucidated the biomechanical differences between implant designs.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the biomechanical performance of the Sutter and Swanson finger joint implants using finite element analysis.
- To predict potential failure modes and identify areas of high stress concentration in both implant designs.
- To provide insights for the development of more robust and durable metacarpophalangeal joint implants.
Main Methods:
- A representative model of Silastic finger metacarpophalangeal joint implants was created using finite element software.
- The implants were subjected to simulated movements including flexion, lateral deviation, and combined motions.
- Stress fields and stem pistoning within the medullary cavities were analyzed for both implant types.
Main Results:
- Pistoning of implant stems was observed in both the Sutter and Swanson implants.
- The Sutter implant exhibited higher stress fields, particularly at the central hinge, compared to the Swanson implant for equivalent flexion.
- Lateral deviation significantly increased internal stress concentrations in both implant designs, more so than pure flexion.
Conclusions:
- The Swanson implant demonstrates lower stress magnitudes and is predicted to have a lower likelihood of failure compared to the Sutter implant.
- The Sutter implant is predicted to fail at its central hinge region.
- The Swanson implant is likely to fail at the central hinge-stem interface regions, suggesting areas for design improvement.

