Advertisement

Biomechanics and Tribology of Artificial Knee Joint

  • Zhenxian Chen
  • Jing Zhang
  • Xiao Zhang
  • Zhong-Min JinEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Biomaterials Science and Engineering book series (SSBSE, volume 13)

Abstract

Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) remains the gold standard polymeric bearing material for use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the wear of UHMWPE inserts, the prosthetic aseptic loosening, and the osteolysis induced by wear particles limit the in vivo performance and lifetime of TKA. The loading and wear performance of UHMWPE components in TKA largely depend on the in vivo biomechanics of artificial knee joint. In turn, the wear of the bearing surfaces of UHMWPE components influences the biomechanics of artificial knee joint. Moreover, the biomechanics and wear of artificial knee joint are influenced by the design, surgical, and patient factors. The development of patient-specific musculoskeletal multibody dynamics simulation provides a reliable virtual platform for the investigation and evaluation of the coupled wear and biomechanical performance of TKA. In the future, in addition to the improvements of the UHMWPE material performance, patient-specific prosthetic design, surgery, and rehabilitation guidance will be the research directions for improving the in vivo wear performance of the UHMWPE components in TKA. In this chapter, both the biomechanics and tribology of knee implants are reviewed. The first section introduces briefly TKA and the current clinical problems. The second section describes the biomechanics of artificial knee joint, including the knee contact forces, the kinematics, and the stress and strain of the UHMWPE insert. The third section reviews the tribology of artificial knee joint, including wear mechanism, wear tests, and prediction of the UHMWPE insert. The fourth section mainly introduces the interaction between the biomechanics and wear of artificial knee joint. The fifth section reviews the effects of prosthetic design and material, surgical and patient factors on the biomechanics, and wear of artificial knee joint. In the final section, the major points are summarized.

Keywords

Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene Artificial knee joint Wear failure Total knee arthroplasty Biomechanics Patient-specific Wear testing Computational simulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Carr BC, Goswami T (2009) Knee implants – review of models and biomechanics. Mater Des 30(2):398–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abdelgaied AAY (2012) Computational wear modelling of knee joint replacements. The University of LeedsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertsson O, Sundberg M, Lidgren L, W-Dahl A (2016) Annual report 2016 – the Swedish knee arthroplasty registerGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Wimmer MA, Holinka M (2013) Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 9(9):8046–8058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg 89(4):780–785Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    GBCP E, Bryant JT, Hansson CM, Rudan J, Kennedy LA, Cooke TDV (1995) A quantitative technique for reporting surface degradation patterns of UHMWPE components of retrieved total knee replacements. J Appl Biomater 6(1):9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonaspetti G, Fabio SD, Fenu R, Costa L, Pazzaglia UE (2005) Polyethylene wear in primary knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 6(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen Z, Zhang X, Ardestani MM, Wang L, Liu Y, Lian Q, He J, Li D, Jin Z (2014) Prediction of in vivo joint mechanics of an artificial knee implant using rigid multi-body dynamics with elastic contacts. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 228(6):564–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinlein B, Kutzner I, Graichen F, Bender A, Rohlmann A, Halder AM, Beier A, Bergmann G (2009) ESB clinical biomechanics award 2008: complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6–10 months. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(4):315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Lima DD, Patil S, Steklov N, Chien S, Colwell CW Jr (2007) In vivo knee moments and shear after total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 40:S11–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozanek M, Hosseini A, Liu F, Van de Velde SK, Gill TJ, Rubash HE, Li G (2009) Tibiofemoral kinematics and condylar motion during the stance phase of gait. J Biomech 42(12):1877–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M AS PB, SK S SY, S M CA (2016) Changes in knee kinematics following total knee arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 230:265–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Varadarajan KM, Moynihan AL, D’Lima D, Colwell CW, Li G (2008) In vivo contact kinematics and contact forces of the knee after total knee arthroplasty during dynamic weight-bearing activities. J Biomech 41(10):2159–2168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ji SJ, Zhou YX, Jiang X, Cheng ZY, Wang GZ, Ding H, Yang ML, Zhu ZL (2015) Effect of joint line elevation after posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining Total knee arthroplasty on clinical function and kinematics. Chin Med J 128(21):2866–2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen Z, Jin Z (2016) Prediction of in-vivo kinematics and contact track of total knee arthroplasty during walking. Biosurface Biotribol 2:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Delp SL, Anderson FC, Arnold AS, Loan P, Habib A, John CT, Guendelman E, Thelen DG (2007) OpenSim: open-source software to create and analyze dynamic simulations of movement. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 54(11):1940–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andersen MS, Rasmussen J (2011) Total knee replacement musculoskeletal model using a novel simulation method for non-conforming joints. In: Paper presented at the International Society of Biomechanics conference, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen Z, Zhang Z, Wang L, Li D, Zhang Y, Jin Z (2016) Evaluation of a subject-specific musculoskeletal modelling framework for load prediction in total knee arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys 38(8):708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marra MA, Vanheule V, Fluit R, Koopman BHFJM, Rasmussen J, Verdonschot N, Andersen MS (2015) A subject-specific musculoskeletal modeling framework to predict in vivo mechanics of total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech Eng 137(2):020904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fregly BJ, Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Delp SL, Banks SA, Pandy MG, D’Lima DD (2012) Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J Orthop Res 30(4):503–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pellikaan P, van der Krogt MM, Carbone V, Fluit R, Vigneron LM, Van Deun J, Verdonschot N, Koopman HF (2014) Evaluation of a morphing based method to estimate muscle attachment sites of the lower extremity. J Biomech 47(5):1144–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andersen MS, Damsgaard M, MacWilliams B, Rasmussen J (2010) A computationally efficient optimisation-based method for parameter identification of kinematically determinate and over-determinate biomechanical systems. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 13(2):171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Blankevoort L, Kuiper J, Huiskes R, Grootenboer H (1991) Articular contact in a three-dimensional model of the knee. J Biomech 24(11):1019–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fregly BJ, Bei YH, Sylvester ME (2003) Experimental evaluation of an elastic foundation model to predict contact pressures in knee replacements. J Biomech 36(11):1659–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwer LE (2007) Validation metrics for response histories: perspectives and case studies. Eng Comput 23(4):295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DesJardins JD, Banks SA, Benson LC, Pace T, LaBerge M (2007) A direct comparison of patient and force-controlled simulator total knee replacement kinematics. J Biomech 40(15):3458–3466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McEwen H, Barnett P, Bell C, Farrar R, Auger D, Stone M, Fisher J (2005) The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech 38(2):357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turell M, Wang A, Bellare A (2003) Quantification of the effect of cross-path motion on the wear rate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Wear 255(7–12):1034–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker PS, Arno S, Borukhoy I, Bell CP (2015) Characterising knee motion and laxity in a testing machine for application to total knee evaluation. J Biomech 48(13):3551–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bingham JT, Papannagari R, Velde SKVD, Gross C, Gill TJ, Felson DT, Rubash HE, Li G (2008) In vivo cartilage contact deformation in the healthy human tibiofemoral joint. Rheumatology 47(11):1622–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harris M, Morberg P, Bruce W, Walsh W (1999) An improved method for measuring tibiofemoral contact areas in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of K-scan sensor and Fuji film. J Biomech 32(9):951–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liau J-J, Cheng C-K, Huang C-H, Lo W-H (2002) Effect of Fuji pressure sensitive film on actual contact characteristics of artificial tibiofemoral joint. Clin Biomech 17(9–10):698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Godest AC, Beaugonin M, Haug E, Taylor M, Gregson PJ (2002) Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis. J Biomech 35(2):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Willing R, Kim IY (2009) Three dimensional shape optimization of total knee replacements for reduced wear. Struct Multidiscip Optim 38(4):405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cripton PA (1993) Compressive characterization of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene with applications to contact stress analysis of total knee replacements. Master of Science thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    D’Lima DD, Steklov N, Fregly BJ, Banks SA, Colwell CW Jr (2008) In vivo contact stresses during activities of daily living after knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 26(12):1549–1555.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fregly BJ, Sawyer WG, Harman MK, Banks SA (2005) Computational wear prediction of a total knee replacement from in vivo kinematics. J Biomech 38(2):305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang A, Essner A, Polineni VK (1998) Lubrication and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacement. Tribol Int 31(1–3):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang A (2001) A unified theory of wear for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in multi-directional sliding. Wear 248(1–2):38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Abdelgaied A, Liu F, Brockett C, Jennings L, Fisher J, Jin Z (2011) Computational wear prediction of artificial knee joints based on a new wear law and formulation. J Biomech 44(6):1108–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, Jasty M, O’Connor DO, Von Knoch RS, Harris WH (2004) Knee-simulator testing of conventional and cross-linked polyethylene tibial inserts. J Arthroplast 19(7):887–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ezzet KA, Hermida JC, Colwell CW Jr, D D’Lima D (2004) Oxidized zirconium femoral components reduce polyethylene wear in a knee wear simulator. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:120–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barnett PI, Fisher J, Auger DD, Stone MH, Ingham E (2001) Comparison of wear in a total knee replacement under different kinematic conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 12(10–12):1039–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kakuta T, Takashima Y, Sano T, Nakamura T, Kobayashi Y, Yamaguchi H, Harada A (2015) Adhesion between semihard polymer materials containing cyclodextrin and adamantane based on host–guest interactions. Macromolecules 48(3):732–738.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma502316d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mihajlovic M, Staropoli M, Appavou M-S, Wyss HM, Pyckhout-Hintzen W, Sijbesma RP (2017) Tough supramolecular hydrogel based on strong hydrophobic interactions in a multiblock segmented copolymer. Macromolecules 50(8):3333–3346.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Algi MP, Okay O (2014) Highly stretchable self-healing poly(N,N-dimethylacrylamide) hydrogels. Eur Polym J 59:113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.07.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zietz C, Reinders J, Schwiesau J, Paulus A, Kretzer JP, Grupp T, Utzschneider S, Bader R (2015) Experimental testing of total knee replacements with UHMW-PE inserts: impact of severe wear test conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 26(3):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Affatato S, Bracco P, Sudanese A (2012) In vitro wear assessments of fixed and mobile UHMWPE total knee replacement. Mater Des 48(2):44–51Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bracco P, Oral E (2011) Vitamin E-stabilized UHMWPE for total joint implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(8):2286–2293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wang A, Yau SS, Essner A, Herrera L, Manley M, Dumbleton J (2008) A highly crosslinked UHMWPE for CR and PS total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplast 23(4):559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Young SK, Keller TS, Greer KW, Gorhan MC (2000) Wear testing of UHMWPE tibial components: influence of oxidation. J Tribol 122(1):323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bills P, Brown L, Jiang X, Blunt L (2005) A metrology solution for the orthopaedic industry. J Phys Conf Ser 13:316–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Muratoglu OK, Perinchief RS, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Konrad R, Harris WH (2003) Metrology to quantify wear and creep of polyethylene tibial knee inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410(410):155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tashiro Y, Uemura M, Matsuda S, Okazaki K, Kawahara S, Hashizume M, Iwamoto Y (2012) Articular cartilage of the posterior condyle can affect rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(8):1463–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Knight LA, Pal S, Coleman JC, Bronson F, Haider H, Levine DL, Taylor M, Rullkoetter PJ (2010) Comparison of long-term numerical and experimental total knee replacement wear during simulated gait loading. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Strickland M, Dressler M, Taylor M (2012) Predicting implant UHMWPE wear in-silico: a robust, adaptable computational–numerical framework for future theoretical models. Wear 274:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Archard JF (1953) Contact and rubbing of flat surfaces. J Appl Phys 24(8):981–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao D, Sakoda H, Sawyer WG, Banks SA, Fregly BJ (2008) Predicting knee replacement damage in a simulator machine using a computational model with a consistent wear factor. J Biomech Eng 130(1):94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kang L, Galvin AL, Fisher J, Jin Z (2009) Enhanced computational prediction of polyethylene wear in hip joints by incorporating cross-shear and contact pressure in additional to load and sliding distance: effect of head diameter. J Biomech 42(7):912–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kang L, Galvin AL, Brown TD, Jin Z, Fisher J (2008) Quantification of the effect of cross-shear on the wear of conventional and highly cross-linked UHMWPE. J Biomech 41(2):340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dressler MR, Strickland MA, Taylor M, Render TD, Ernsberger CN (2011) Predicting wear of UHMWPE: decreasing wear rate following a change in direction. In: Transactions of the meeting, pp 2879–2883Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    O’Brien ST, Bohm ER, Petrak MJ, Wyss UP, Brandt J-M (2014) An energy dissipation and cross shear time dependent computational wear model for the analysis of polyethylene wear in total knee replacements. J Biomech 47(5):1127–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wang A, Lee R, Herrera L, Korduba L (2013) Modeling and verification of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear in multi-directional sliding. Wear 301(Suppl 1–2):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG (1994) Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299(299):31–43Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Currier JH, Bill MA, Mayor MB (2005) Analysis of wear asymmetry in a series of 94 retrieved polyethylene tibial bearings. J Biomech 38(2):367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    O’Brien S, Luo Y, Wu C, Petrak M, Bohm E, Brandt J-M (2012) Prediction of backside micromotion in total knee replacements by finite element simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 226(H3):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gupta SK, Chu A, Ranawat AS, Slamin J, Ranawat CS (2007) Review article: osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22(6):787–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    O’Brien S, Luo Y, Wu C, Petrak M, Bohm E, Brandt JM (2012) Computational development of a polyethylene wear model for the articular and backside surfaces in modular total knee replacements. Tribol Int 59:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jayabalan P, Furman BD, Cottrell JM, Wright TM (2007) Backside wear in modern total knee designs. HSS J 3(1):30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mcewen HM, Fisher J, Goldsmith AA, Auger DD, Hardaker C, Stone MH (2001) Wear of fixed bearing and rotating platform mobile bearing knees subjected to high levels of internal and external tibial rotation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 12(10):1049–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Atwood SA, Kennedy FE, Currier JH, Citters DWV, Collier JP, Collier JP (2006) In vitro study of backside wear mechanisms on mobile knee-bearing components. J Tribol 128(2):275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Engh GA, Zimmerman RL, Parks NL, Engh CA (2009) Analysis of wear in retrieved mobile and fixed bearing knee inserts. J Arthroplast 24(6 Suppl):28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wimmer MA, Birken L, Sellenschloh K, Schneider E (2013) Damage due to rolling in total knee replacement—the influence of tractive force. Friction 1(2):178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Brandt JM, Macdonald SJ, Bourne RB, Medley JB (2012) Retrieval analysis of modular total knee replacements: factors influencing backside surface damage. Knee 19(4):306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Johnson TS, Laurent MP, Yao JQ, Blanchard CR (2003) Comparison of wear of mobile and fixed bearing knees tested in a knee simulator. Wear 255(7–12):1107–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Haider H, Garvin K (2008) Rotating platform versus fixed-bearing total knees: an in vitro study of wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(11):2677–2685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Garcia RM, Kraay MJ, Messerschmitt PJ, Goldberg VM, Rimnac CM (2009) Analysis of retrieved ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene tibial components from rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24(1):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zhang J, Chen Z, Wang L, Li D, Jin Z (2016) A patient-specific wear prediction framework for an artificial knee joint with coupled musculoskeletal multibody-dynamics and finite element analysis. Tribol Int 109:382–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Rullkoetter PJ (2012) The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. J Biomech 45(12):2092–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Willing R, Kim IY (2011) Design optimization of a total knee replacement for improved constraint and flexion kinematics. J Biomech 44(6):1014–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Fregly BJ, Marquezbarrientos C, Banks SA, Desjardins JD (2010) Increased conformity offers diminishing returns for reducing total knee replacement wear. J Biomech Eng 132(2):555–575Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ardestani MM, Moazen M, Jin Z (2015) Contribution of geometric design parameters to knee implant performance: conflicting impact of conformity on kinematics and contact mechanics. Knee 22(3):217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Cyr AJ, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ (2013) Mechanics of post-cam engagement during simulated dynamic activity. J Orthop Res 31(9):1438–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Fitzpatrick CK, Baldwin MA, Clary CW, Wright A, Laz PJ, Rullkoetter PJ (2012) Identifying alignment parameters affecting implanted patellofemoral mechanics. J Orthop Res 30(7):1167–1175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Schindler OS (2012) The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: ibisne in medio tutissimus? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(7):1227–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1985-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Abdelgaied A, Brockett CL, Liu F, Jennings LM, Jin Z, Fisher J (2014) The effect of insert conformity and material on total knee replacement wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 228(1):98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411913513251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Glynjones S, Mclardysmith P, Gill HS, Murray DW (2008) The creep and wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg 90(5):556–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Galvin AL, Kang L, Udofia I, Jennings LM, McEwen HMJ, Jin Z, Fisher J (2009) Effect of conformity and contact stress on wear in fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. J Biomech 42(12):1898–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Fisher J (2011) The wear of fixed and mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 225(5):511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Hardaker C, Fisher J (2012) Wear of moderately cross-linked polyethylene in fixed-bearing total knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 226(7):529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ueno M, Ikeuchi K, Nakamura T, Akagi M (2003) Comparison of the wear properties of polyethylene plate in total knee prostheses (TKP) using different femoral component materials. Key Eng Mater 240–242(1):801–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplast 28(8):120–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Liau JJ, Cheng CK, Huang CH, Lo WH (2002) The effect of malalignment on stresses in polyethylene component of total knee prostheses – a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech 17(2):140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Werner FW, Ayers DC, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ (2005) The effect of valgus/varus malalignment on load distribution in total knee replacements. J Biomech 38(2):349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zihlmann MS, Stacoff A, Romero J, Quervain IK, Stüssi E (2005) Biomechanical background and clinical observations of rotational malalignment in TKA: literature review and consequences. Clin Biomech 20(7):661–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ng VY, DeClaire JH, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr (2012) Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Srivastava A, Lee GY, Steklov N, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD (2012) Effect of tibial component varus on wear in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 19(5):560–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R, Faris GW, Davis KE (2004) The Chetranjan Ranawat award: tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Chen Z, Wang L, Liu Y, He J, Lian Q, Li D, Jin Z (2015) Effect of component mal-rotation on knee loading in total knee arthroplasty using multi-body dynamics modeling under a simulated walking gait. J Orthop Res 33(9):1287–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Silva M, Shepherd EF, Jackson WO, Pratt JA, McClung CD, Schmalzried TP (2003) Knee strength after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(5):605–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ardestani MM, Moazen M, Jin Z (2015) Sensitivity analysis of human lower extremity joint moments due to changes in joint kinematics. Med Eng Phys 37(2):165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Fregly BJ, D’Lima DD, Colwell CW (2009) Effective gait patterns for offloading the medial compartment of the knee. J Orthop Res 27(8):1016–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ardestani MM, Moazen M, Chen Z, Zhang J, Jin Z (2015) A real-time topography of maximum contact pressure distribution at medial tibiofemoral knee implant during gait: application to knee rehabilitation. Neurocomputing 154(0):174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ardestani MM, Moazen M, Jin Z (2014) Gait modification and optimization using neural network–genetic algorithm approach: application to knee rehabilitation. Expert Syst Appl 41(16):7466–7477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Foran JR, Mont MA, Etienne G, Jones LC, Hungerford DS (2004) The outcome of total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A(8):1609–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Knarr BA, Higginson JS, Zeni JA (2015) Change in knee contact force with simulated change in body weight. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 19(3):1–4Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Harding GT, Dunbar MJ, Hubley-Kozey CL, Stanish WD, Astephen Wilson JL (2016) Obesity is associated with higher absolute tibiofemoral contact and muscle forces during gait with and without knee osteoarthritis. Clin Biomech 31:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Lavernia CJ, Sierra RJ, Hungerford DS, Krackow K (2001) Activity level and wear in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 16(4):446–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhenxian Chen
    • 1
  • Jing Zhang
    • 1
  • Xiao Zhang
    • 2
  • Zhong-Min Jin
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Road Construction Technology and Equipment of MOEChang’an UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory for Manufacturing System Engineering, School of Mechanical EngineeringXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  3. 3.Tribology Research Institute, School of Mechanical EngineeringSouthwest Jiaotong UniversityChengduChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Manufacturing System Engineering, School of Mechanical EngineeringXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina
  5. 5.Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, School of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations