2018
DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2018.1513771
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of posterior tibial slope and implant material on the bone-implant system following TKA: A finite element study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The posterior inclination of the tibial plateau is known as the Posterior tibial slope (PTS). The normal range for PTS has been reported in different studies anywhere between 3°-9° (2) , Hofmann et al reported 7°, Laskin and Reiger have reported 8°-10°, and Chiu et al said 14.8° (3) . However, the extent of PTS may vary depending on ethnicity, age group and patient's needs (2) , Conventionally the PTS cannot be reconstructed correctly in every patient due to inter-patient variability and surgical instruments uncertainty (4) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The posterior inclination of the tibial plateau is known as the Posterior tibial slope (PTS). The normal range for PTS has been reported in different studies anywhere between 3°-9° (2) , Hofmann et al reported 7°, Laskin and Reiger have reported 8°-10°, and Chiu et al said 14.8° (3) . However, the extent of PTS may vary depending on ethnicity, age group and patient's needs (2) , Conventionally the PTS cannot be reconstructed correctly in every patient due to inter-patient variability and surgical instruments uncertainty (4) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Generally, such studies make simplifying assumptions to enable calculation. Some of these hypotheses base both the choice of material properties and the boundary conditions on clinical literature, but without considering the patient's specific features (Table 1) (Castro et al 2015;Brihault et al 2016;El-Zayat et al 2016;Innocenti et al 2016;Thompson et al 2016;Baliga et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(in MPa) for q 0:778 assign them in differentiated (Baliga et al 2018) or non-differentiated fashion to the trabecular and bone regions (Taddei et al 2006a), while generic models assign homogenous material properties in different subregion of the bones (Au et al 2005;Innocenti et al 2016), It would, therefore, be of great interest to evaluate the differences, in terms of biomechanical fields, resulting from the use of different material properties assignment strategies and integrates into this process, along with geometrical criteria, patient-specific mechanical properties via empirical formulae linking the mechanical properties of the tibia to the CT scan acquisitions (Helgason et al 2008;Knowles et al 2016). Moreover, the acquisition-window height of the CT scans required for a patient-specific finite element model (PSFEM) could be minimized to reduce patients radiation exposure (Brenner and Hall 2007), acquisition time and PSFEM size.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%