Literature DB >> 23647863

Validation of multiple subject-specific finite element models of unicompartmental knee replacement.

Mahmut Tuncer1, Justin P Cobb, Ulrich N Hansen, Andrew A Amis.   

Abstract

Accurate computer modelling of the fixation of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) is a valuable design tool. However, models must be validated with in vitro mechanical tests to have confidence in the results. Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees with differing bone densities were CT-scanned to obtain geometry and bone density data, then implanted with cementless medial Oxford UKRs by an orthopaedic surgeon. Five strain gauge rosettes were attached to the tibia and femur of each knee and the bone constructs were mechanically tested. They were re-tested following implanting the cemented versions of the implants. Finite element models of four UKR tibiae and femora were developed. Sensitivity assessments and convergence studies were conducted to optimise modelling parameters. The cemented UKR pooled R(2) values for predicted versus measured bone strains were 0.85 and 0.92 for the tibia and femur respectively. The cementless UKR pooled R(2) values were slightly lower at 0.62 and 0.73 which may have been due to the irregularity of bone resections. The correlation of the results was attributed partly to the improved material property prediction method used in this project. This study is the first to validate multiple UKR tibiae and femora for bone strain across a range of specimen bone densities.
Copyright © 2013 IPEM. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone strain; Computer simulation; Finite element analysis; Strain gauge; Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR); Validation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23647863     DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.03.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Eng Phys        ISSN: 1350-4533            Impact factor:   2.242


  10 in total

1.  Biomechanical evaluation of total ankle arthroplasty. Part II: Influence of loading and fixation design on tibial bone-implant interaction.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Brett D Steineman; Daniel R Sturnick; Jonathan T Deland; Constantine A Demetracopoulos; Timothy M Wright
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.494

2.  [Biomechanical research on effects of pseudo-patella baja on stress of patellofemoral joint after total knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  Wenxing Wei; Yong Nie; Yuangang Wu; Bin Shen
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-07-15

3.  Impact of Tibial Component Coronal Alignment on Knee Joint Biomechanics Following Fixed-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Yong Nie; Qiang Yu; Bin Shen
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 2.071

4.  Do Metaphyseal Cones and Stems Provide Any Biomechanical Advantage for Moderate Contained Tibial Defects in Revision TKA? A Finite-Element Analysis Based on a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Fernando J Quevedo González; Kathleen N Meyers; Nicholas Schraut; Kapil G Mehrotra; Joseph D Lipman; Timothy M Wright; Michael P Ast
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  Development and validation of a computational model of the knee joint for the evaluation of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis.

Authors:  R Mootanah; C W Imhauser; F Reisse; D Carpanen; R W Walker; M F Koff; M W Lenhoff; S R Rozbruch; A T Fragomen; Z Dewan; Y M Kirane; K Cheah; J K Dowell; H J Hillstrom
Journal:  Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 1.763

6.  Total ankle replacement design and positioning affect implant-bone micromotion and bone strains.

Authors:  Ran S Sopher; Andrew A Amis; James D Calder; Jonathan R T Jeffers
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 2.242

7.  Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model.

Authors:  C E H Scott; M J Eaton; R W Nutton; F A Wade; S L Evans; P Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.853

8.  Biomechanical effects of fixed-bearing femoral prostheses with different coronal positions in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Pengcheng Ma; Aikeremujiang Muheremu; Siping Zhang; Qian Zheng; Wei Wang; Kan Jiang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  The risk of tibial eminence avulsion fracture with bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty : a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer C Stoddart; Amy Garner; Mahmut Tuncer; Justin P Cobb; Richard J van Arkel
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 4.410

10.  Tissue material properties and computational modelling of the human tibiofemoral joint: a critical review.

Authors:  Abby E Peters; Riaz Akhtar; Eithne J Comerford; Karl T Bates
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 2.984

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.