ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2017
Analysis of different bicruciate-retaining tibial prosthesis design using a three dimension finite element model.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent interest in bicruciate-retaining prostheses has aimed to address the need for an implant that can mimic a natural knee. Arguments have always existed about survivorship, including loosening and subsidence, as well as tibial preparation in bicruciate-retaining tibial prostheses. The aim of this study was to investigate the biomechanics of a new modular design and other bicruciate-retaining designs using a three-dimensional finite element model under different load conditions to discover which prosthesis was more suitable. We also evaluated related parameters (the third principal stress, shear stress, micromotion, and von Mises stresses) to compare the characteristics of different bicruciate-retaining designs. The biomechanics of the bicruciate-retaining tibial prosthesis can be influenced by the style of the designed prosthesis and gait loading. The new modular design showed stability and moderated the third principal stress, leading to less shear stress and stress shield, suggesting that this type of design can avoid knee prosthesis loosening and subsidence. Therefore, the new design may be used as a more suitable prosthesis for future bicruciate-retaining implant application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28560009PMC5446541What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.