Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the Tibiofemoral Contact Characteristics of a Customized Surface-Guided Knee Implant

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chapman-Sheath, P., Bruce, W., Chung, W., Morberg, P., Gillies, R., & Walsh, W. (2003). In vitro assessment of proximal polyethylene contact surface areas and stresses in mobile bearing knees. Medical Engineering & Physics, 25, 437–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rawlinson, J., & Bartel, D. (2002). Flat medial–lateral conformity in total knee replacements does not minimize contact stresses. Journal of Biomechanics, 35, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Halloran, J. P., Easley, S. K., Petrella, A. J., & Rullkoetter, P. J. (2005). Comparison of deformable and elastic foundation finite element simulations for predicting knee replacement mechanics. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 127, 813–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Simpson, D., Gray, H., D’Lima, D., Murray, D., & Gill, H. (2008). The effect of bearing congruency, thickness and alignment on the stresses in unicompartmental knee replacements. Clinical Biomechanics, 23, 1148–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Willing, R., & Kim, I. Y. (2009). Three dimensional shape optimization of total knee replacements for reduced wear. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 38, 405–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zdero, R., Fenton, P., Rudan, J., & Bryant, J. (2001). Fuji film and ultrasound measurement of total knee arthroplasty contact areas. Journal of Arthroplasty, 16, 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. D’Lima, D., Chen, P. C., & Colwell, C. W., Jr. (2001). Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity, and knee alignment. Clinical Orthopaedics, 392, 232–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shiramizu, K., Vizesi, F., Bruce, W., Herrmann, S., & Walsh, W. R. (2009). Tibiofemoral contact areas and pressures in six high flexion knees. International Orthopaedics, 33, 403–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walker, P. S. (2015). The design and pre-clinical evaluation of knee replacements for osteoarthritis. Journal of Biomechanics, 48, 742–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sathasivam, S., & Walker, P. (1998). Computer model to predict subsurface damage in tibial inserts of total knees. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 16, 564–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fregly, B. J., Sawyer, W. G., Harman, M. K., & Banks, S. A. (2005). Computational wear prediction of a total knee replacement from in vivo kinematics. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Godest, A., Beaugonin, M., Haug, E., Taylor, M., & Gregson, P. (2002). Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 35, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liau, J., Hu, C., Cheng, C., Huang, C., & Lo, W. (2001). The influence of inserting a Fuji pressure sensitive film between the tibiofemoral joint of knee prosthesis on actual contact characteristics. Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pejhan, S., Bohm, E., Brandt, J., & Wyss, U. (2016). Design and virtual evaluation of a customized surface-guided knee implant. Procedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 230, 949–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wyss, U., Amiri, S., & Cooke, T. D. V. (2010). Knee prosthesis. Patent:US20120179265.

  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.

  19. Willing, R., & Kim, I. Y. (2009). A holistic numerical model to predict strain hardening and damage of UHMWPE under multiple total knee replacement kinematics and experimental validation. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 2520–2527.

    Article  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.

  21. ASTM standard: F2083-11: Standard specifications for total knee prosthesis (2011).

  22. Bergmann, G., Bender, A., Graichen, F., Dymke, J., Rohlmann, A., et al. (2014). Standardized loads acting in knee implants. PLoS ONE, 9, e86035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith, S. M., Cockburn, R. A., Hemmerich, A., Li, R. M., & Wyss, U. P. (2008). Tibiofemoral joint contact forces and knee kinematics during squatting. Gait Posture, 27, 376–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weiss, J. M., Noble, P. C., Conditt, M. A., Kohl, H. W., Roberts, S., Cook, K. F., et al. (2002). What Functional Activities are Important to Patients with Knee Replacements? Clin Orthop, 404, 172–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Morra, E. A., & Greenwald, A. S. (2003). Effects of walking gait on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene damage in unicompartmental knee systems: A finite element study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 85(4), 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Halloran, J. P., Petrella, A. J., & Rullkoetter, P. J. (2005). Explicit finite element modeling of total knee replacement mechanics. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(2), 323–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Khosravipour, I. (2015). Contact stress analysis of Surface guided knee implant using finite element modeling. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

  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.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V6, Canada

    Shabnam Pejhan, Ida Khosravipour, Jan-Mels Brandt, Yunhua Luo & Urs Wyss

  2. Orthopaedic Innovation Centre, Winnipeg, MB, R2L 4L5, Canada

    Trevor Gascoyne, Eric Bohm & Urs Wyss

  3. Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3A 1R9, Canada

    Eric Bohm

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Engineering & Information Technology Complex, 75 A Chancellors Circle, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

    Shabnam Pejhan

Authors
  1. Shabnam Pejhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ida Khosravipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Trevor Gascoyne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eric Bohm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jan-Mels Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yunhua Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Urs Wyss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shabnam Pejhan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pejhan, S., Khosravipour, I., Gascoyne, T. et al. Evaluation of the Tibiofemoral Contact Characteristics of a Customized Surface-Guided Knee Implant. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 39, 205–212 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0399-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40846-018-0399-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation