Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28144820›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2017

A preclinical numerical assessment of a polyetheretherketone femoral component in total knee arthroplasty during gait.

Lennert de Ruiter, Dennis Janssen, Adam Briscoe, Nico Verdonschot

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Third Body Wear of UHMWPE-on-PEEK-OPTIMA™.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  11. Wear and Friction of UHMWPE-on-PEEK OPTIMA™.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2019
    Article
  12. The mechanical response of a polyetheretherketone femoral knee implant under a deep squatting loading condition.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2017
    Article
  13. Peek polymer in orthodontics: A pilot study on children.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lennert de RuiterOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Lennert.deRuiter@radboudumc.nl.
Dennis JanssenOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Adam BriscoeInvibio Ltd, Thornton Cleveleys, Lancashire, FY5 4QD, UK.
Nico VerdonschotOrthopaedic Research Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Central Lancashire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional total knee replacement designs show high success rates but in the long term, the stiff metal components may affect bone quality of the distal femur. In this study we introduce an all-polymer total knee replacement device containing a PEEK femoral component on an UHMWPE tibial implant and study its mechanical integrity, fixation, and stress shielding of the periprosthetic femur.

methodsThe implant was analysed in finite element simulations of level gait, adopted from the ISO 14243-1 standard. Mechanical integrity of the implant and underlying cement mantle were tested, and the fixation strength of the cement-implant interface was studied. Stress shielding was assessed based on strain energy density distributions in the distal femur. We compared PEEK and CoCr implants for mechanical performance and fixation, and compared both versions against an intact case to determine the change in bone strain energy density.

resultsThe mechanical integrity of the PEEK and CoCr components was similar in magnitude, but differences in stress patterns were found. Moreover, the cement mantle was loaded more heavily in the CoCr configuration. Under similar interface properties, the CoCr-cement interface was more at risk of failure than the PEEK-cement interface. The bone strain energy density distribution of the PEEK implant was similar to the intact case, while the CoCr implant showed signs of stress shielding, and a different distribution than the intact and PEEK models.

conclusionsDuring gait, the PEEK femoral component performed similarly to CoCr, with no added risk for the cement mantle. The reduction in stress shielding for PEEK was evident and confirms the potential reduction in long-term loss of bone stock for this all-polymer knee implant.

Indexed as

Finite element analysisImplant mechanical integrityPolyetheretherketoneStress shieldingTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID28144820
PMCPMC5285288
OpenAlexW2585946011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.