1989
DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(89)80018-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stability and anchorage considerations for cementless tibial components

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The material properties of the corticocancellous region of the proximal tibia are complex. Finite element models have used material parameters based on the properties of polyurethane foam for cancellous bone,15, 16 published elastic properties from indentation testing,10, 12 and CT density‐based calculations for spatially varying elastic properties 14. While finite element models can simulate complex biomechanical conditions, few have been validated experimentally 14, 16…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The material properties of the corticocancellous region of the proximal tibia are complex. Finite element models have used material parameters based on the properties of polyurethane foam for cancellous bone,15, 16 published elastic properties from indentation testing,10, 12 and CT density‐based calculations for spatially varying elastic properties 14. While finite element models can simulate complex biomechanical conditions, few have been validated experimentally 14, 16…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…36 In the interest of investigating aseptic loosening in cementless tibial trays, several previous studies have been undertaken to assess the mechanical stability of an implanted tibial tray through bench testing and finite element analysis. [21][22][23][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] Many of these studies have used simplified loading models to assess tibial tray stability, while a few more recent studies have included more complex loading scenarios. 25,37 More recently, radiostereometric analysis has been paired with mechanical testing to evaluate cementless tibial component subsidence in cadaveric models, with median subsidence reported between 0.5 and 2.5 mm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1995, Bloebaum et al 1997. It has been reported that bone ingrowth into porous coating is dependent on adequate initial stability, implant design, and surgical technique (Dempsy et al 1989). In addition, the presence of osteogenic precursor cells in bone marrow is essential for bone ingrowth to occur (Spector 1988).…”
Section: Background and Purpose Poor Bone Ingrowth Into The Porous Comentioning
confidence: 99%