Evaluation of the Tibiofemoral Contact Characteristics of a Customized Surface-Guided Knee Implant
- 26 Downloads
A surface-guided total knee replacement (TKR) aims to achieve close to normal kinematics through specially shaped tibiofemoral articulating surfaces. The resulting geometry of the TKR components affects the tibiofemoral contact mechanics. Therefore, evaluation of the contact characteristics of the implant is critical, as the tibiofemoral contact stress influences the short-term and long-term performance and durability of the implants. In this study, the contact behavior at the tibiofemoral articulating interface for a customized surface-guided TKR was studied. The contact area and mean contact stress at specific flexion angles were measured mechanically by pressure sensitive films to validate the outcomes from finite element analysis (FEA) under similar load conditions. Two activities of daily living were studied; lunging and squatting. As expected, FEA predicted larger contact areas at various flexion angles due to the limited sensitivity range of the pressure sensitive films. During lunging and squatting, the contact area increased as the flexion angle reached 90°, and decreased as the knee was flexed to higher angles. The mean contact pressure was less than 10 MPa at 120 degrees of flexion under squatting load. The outcomes revealed that a high range of motion can be achieved, while the mean contact pressure remains below the material limits of the tibial polyethylene insert.
KeywordsTotal knee replacement Pressure-sensitive film Finite element Surface-guided
This work was supported by DePuy Synthes, the University of Manitoba, and the Orthopedic Innovation Center. We are grateful for the technical support and contributions of Leah Guenther, Meaghan Coates and Lawrence Cruz at the Orthopedic Innovation Center.
- 4.Bartel, D., Rawlinson, J., Burstein, A., Ranawat, C., & Flynn, W., Jr. (1995). Stresses in polyethylene components of contemporary total knee replacements. Clinical Orthopaedics, 317, 76–82.Google Scholar
- 5.Barink, M., De Waal Malefijt, M., Celada, P., Vena, P., Van Kampen, A., & Verdonschot, N. (2008). A mechanical comparison of high-flexion and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 222, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Wyss, U., Amiri, S., & Cooke, T. D. V. (2010). Knee prosthesis. Patent:US20120179265.Google Scholar
- 18.Kurtz, S. (2009). Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacement and medical devices. UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 20.Khosravipour, I., Luo, Y., Pejhan, S., & Wyss, U. (2015). Contact stress analysis of surface guided knee implant: Proceedings of the 25th CANCAM, London. Ontario: Canada.Google Scholar
- 21.ASTM standard: F2083-11: Standard specifications for total knee prosthesis (2011).Google Scholar
- 27.Khosravipour, I. (2015). Contact stress analysis of Surface guided knee implant using finite element modeling. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
- 28.International Standard Organization. (2009). Implants for surgery—wear of total knee-joint prostheses—Part 1: Loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with load control and corresponding environmental conditions for test-ISO 14243–1.Google Scholar