2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105103
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting friction at the bone – Implant interface in cementless total knee arthroplasty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
5
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In order to achieve basic stability during the postoperative period without the formation of an alignment, the resistance to movement between the bone and the implant is optimized by increasing the friction at the interface. This is necessary because excessive relative movements can inhibit bone growth due to wear and tear of the bone and formation of fibrous tissue at the implant interface, which can lead to loosening and pain (de Vries et al, 2022). Therefore, oversizing or malposition should be avoided when installing a tibial plateau prosthesis during TKA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to achieve basic stability during the postoperative period without the formation of an alignment, the resistance to movement between the bone and the implant is optimized by increasing the friction at the interface. This is necessary because excessive relative movements can inhibit bone growth due to wear and tear of the bone and formation of fibrous tissue at the implant interface, which can lead to loosening and pain (de Vries et al, 2022). Therefore, oversizing or malposition should be avoided when installing a tibial plateau prosthesis during TKA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dimensions of the stem specimens were measured at characteristic points and mean differences to the nominal dimension were −0.03 ± 0.13 mm (range: −0.49 to 0.25 mm). Since the roughness influences the primary implant stability, 29 it was measured for stems of group 1 and 3 using laser scanning microscopy (VK-X250, Keyence Germany GmbH, Neu-Isenburg, Germany) with 10-times magnification, λ S = 8, and λ C = 25. The mean roughness Ra were 19.5 ± 4.3 µm (group 1) and 21.4 ± 3.0 µm (group 3).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…14,18,19,[22][23][24][25] It is influenced by bone density, surgical technique, implant material and design, the level of press-fit, and the magnitude and direction of the physiological loads. 14,18,19,23,24,[26][27][28][29] Regarding the response of human bone cells, small micromotions at the boneimplant interface are improving cell differentiation and bone formation at the interface. 30,31 But values greater than 0.15 mm are causing fibrous tissue formation 32 increasing the risk of implant failure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most previous literature has been confined to experimental studies on the femoral TKA component. These studies established that postoperative primary fixation for cementless implants depends on the magnitude of the interference fit and the coefficient of friction [12][13][14][15]. These studies concluded that a higher coefficient of friction achieves superior primary fixation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%