Literature DB >> 7054194

A comparative evaluation of tibial component designs of total knee prostheses.

J L Lewis, M J Askew, D P Jaycox.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Three-dimensional finite-element stress analyses were used to compare the fixation of tibial component configurations of surface-replacement-type total knee prostheses, bases on the stresses in the cancellous bone, in the polymethylmethacrylate, and at the bone cement-bone interface. The results indicate that, in general, metal components provide lower system stresses than polyethylene components, particularly in the methacrylate and the cancellous bone, and that one-piece designs give lower bone cement-bone interface stresses compared with those with separated condylar components. Of the designs considered, a single-post, metal-backed design provided the lowest system stresses over-all. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: a great and confusing variety of tibial component design exists today, with more in the process of development. Short of long term clinical trials, there are few objective methods by which these designs can be evaluated and long-term performance predicted. There is evidence from clinical results that excessively high stresses in the systems can lead to loosening of the tibial component. The finite-element method provides a method for comparing prosthetic designs using system stresses a s a design criterion. On this basis, we analyzed the stress distribution for several types of tibial components and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of their designs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7054194

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  8 in total

1.  Finite element analysis: a comparison of an all-polyethylene tibial implant and its metal-backed equivalent.

Authors:  S M Thompson; D Yohuno; W N Bradley; A D Crocombe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Short-keeled cemented tibial components show an increased risk for aseptic loosening.

Authors:  Christian Ries; Markus Heinichen; Florian Dietrich; Eike Jakubowitz; Christian Sobau; Christian Heisel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  A parametric axisymmetric model study on the interface motions in porous-surfaced tibial implants.

Authors:  A Shirazi-Adl; A M Ahmed
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  The role of fluid hydrostatic pressure in bone-implant interface load transfer.

Authors:  J L Lewis; C Keller; S D Stulberg; J Steege; M Santare
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 3.934

5.  All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components are equivalent with BMI of less than 37.5.

Authors:  Jared Toman; Richard Iorio; William L Healy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Biomechanical aspects of the development of aseptic necrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  T Ueo; S Tsutsumi; T Yamamuro; H Okumura; A Shimizu; T Nakamura
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1985

7.  All-polyethylene tibial components generate higher stress and micromotions than metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jean Brihault; Alessandro Navacchia; Silvia Pianigiani; Luc Labey; Ronny De Corte; Valerio Pascale; Bernardo Innocenti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  Cemented all-poly tibia in resource constrained country, affordable and cost-effective care. Is it applicable at this era? Review article.

Authors:  Vickash Kumar; Obada Hasan; Masood Umer; Naveed Baloch
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-09-27
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.