TKR-tool: An expert system for Total Knee Replacement management

  • J. Heras
  • R. P. Otero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 934)


TKR-tool is an expert system for Total Knee Replacement that gives advice and assists patient management at every stage of the TKR process from preoperatory and postoperatory evaluation to patient follow-up. The system uses temporal reasoning to manage the patient's history. Expert system advise includes patient category and scoring according to different studies, accurate parameters for TKR surgery success, postoperatory evaluation and prostheses risk failure.


Applications of AI in Medicine Temporal Reasoning Integration of KBS and patient medical record 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chesnut W.J. Preoperative diagnostic protocol to predict candidates for unicompartamental arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics, (273):146–150, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Insall J.N., Dorr D.D., Scott R.D., and Scott W.N. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clinical Orthopaedics, (248):13–14, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson F., Leitf S., and Waugh W. The distribution of load across the knee: A comparison of static and dinamic measurements. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Br), (62-B):346–349, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooke T.D.V., Scudamore R.A., Bryant J.T., Sorbie C., Siu D., and Fisher B. A quantitative approach to radiography of the lower limb: Principles and applications. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Br), (73-B):715–720, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Otero R.P. MEDTOOL, una herramienta para el desarrollo de sistemas expertos. PhD thesis, Universidad de Santiago, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barreiro A., Otero R.P., Marín R., and Mira J. A modular knowledge base for the follow-up of clinical protocols. Methods of information in Medicine, (32):373–381, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Edwall F.C. The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics, (248):9–12, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rand J.A., Bryan R.S., Morrey B.F., and Westholm F. Management of infected total knee arthroplasty. (205):75, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosemberg A.G., Bardem R.M., and Galante J.O. Cemented and ingrowth fixation of the miller-gallante prosthesis: Clinical and roentgenographic comparison after three-to-six-year follow-up studies. Clinical Orthopaedics, (260):71–79, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engh G.A., Dwyer K.A., and Hanes C.K. Polyetylene wear of metal-backed tibial components in total and unicompartmental knee prostheses. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Br), (74–B):9–17, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartel D.L., Burstein A.H., Toda M.D., and Edwards D.L. The effects of conformity and plastic thickness on contact stresses in metal-backed implants. J. Biomech Eng, (107):193–199, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Heras
    • 1
  • R. P. Otero
    • 2
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Surgery and Trauma Dpt.Hospital General de GaliciaA CoruñaSpain
  2. 2.Dept. Computación, Fac. InformáticaUniversidade de A CoruñaA CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations