Literature DB >> 11954704

Kinematic analysis of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knee prostheses by simulation.

K Higashijima1, A Ishida, Y Fukuoka, A Hoshino, H Minamitani.   

Abstract

The object of the study was to model fixed-bearing knee prostheses (FBKs) and mobile-bearing knee prostheses (MBKs) during weight-bearing deep knee bends and to analyse and compare the kinematics of the two prosthesis types. To obtain quantitative data, an overall model of a leg was constructed, and this included a three-dimensional model of the tibiofemoral joint and simplified two-dimensional models of the ankle and patellofemoral joint. The simulated movement pattern of the tibiofemoral contact point in the FBK was analysed to show the posterior contact position on the tibia at full extension and anterior translation as the knee was flexed from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. The simulated maximum displacements of the medial and lateral contact positions of the FBK were 5.6 and 6.2 mm, respectively. These results were almost in agreement with experimental studies. Compared with the FBK, the movement pattern of the tibiofemoral contact point in the MBK for the anterior contact position on the tibia at full extension and posterior translation, with respect to the tibia as the knee was flexed, gave results closer to those of the normal knee. The simulated displacements of the medial and lateral contact positions of the MBK with respect to the tibia were 9.0 and 13.0 mm from full extension to 90 degrees flexion, respectively. The difference in the kinematic results between the FBK and the MBK could be accounted for by movement of the insert and the larger force of the posterior cruciate ligament on the MBK.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11954704     DOI: 10.1007/bf02347691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput        ISSN: 0140-0118            Impact factor:   2.602


  16 in total

1.  In vivo kinematics of total knee arthroplasty. Concave versus posterior-stabilised tibial joint surface.

Authors:  J Uvehammer; J Kärrholm; S Brandsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-05

2.  In vitro forces in the normal and cruciate-deficient knee during simulated squatting motion.

Authors:  R Singerman; J Berilla; M Archdeacon; A Peyser
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  A mathematical model for the evaluation of the behaviour during flexion of condylar-type knee prostheses.

Authors:  J R Essinger; P F Leyvraz; J H Heegard; D D Robertson
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.712

4.  A comparison of tibiofemoral joint forces and electromyographic activity during open and closed kinetic chain exercises.

Authors:  K E Wilk; R F Escamilla; G S Fleisig; S W Barrentine; J R Andrews; M L Boyd
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1996 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  A computer model with surface friction for the prediction of total knee kinematics.

Authors:  S Sathasivam; P S Walker
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Mechanical evaluation of mobile bearing knees.

Authors:  P P Menchetti; P S Walker
Journal:  Am J Knee Surg       Date:  1997

7.  In vivo kinematics of cruciate-retaining and -substituting knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  S A Banks; G D Markovich; W A Hodge
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  A mathematical model of the patellofemoral joint.

Authors:  T M van Eijden; E Kouwenhoven; J Verburg; W A Weijs
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Interaction between intrinsic knee mechanics and the knee extensor mechanism.

Authors:  L F Draganich; T P Andriacchi; G B Andersson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  A three-dimensional mathematical model of the knee-joint.

Authors:  J Wismans; F Veldpaus; J Janssen; A Huson; P Struben
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 2.712

View more
  1 in total

1.  Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses.

Authors:  D Biau; M M Mullins; T Judet; P Piriou
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-03-25       Impact factor: 4.342

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.