Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29658386›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine2018

Finite element evaluation of the newest ISO testing standard for polyethylene total knee replacement liners.

Steven P Mell, Spencer Fullam, Markus A Wimmer, Hannah J Lundberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sensitivity of total knee replacement wear to variability in motion and load input: A parametric finite element analysis study.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2020
    Article
  8. 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.

Steven P Mell1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Spencer Fullam1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Markus A Wimmer1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Hannah J Lundberg1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

Wear Testing for Enhanced Prediction of TKR Clinical PerformanceR01AR059843 · NIAMS · RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WIMMER, MARKUS ANTON · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR059843
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis is total knee replacement. Given that the number of total knee replacement surgeries is expected to approach 3.48 million by 2030, understanding long-term failure is important. One of the preclinical tests for total knee replacements is carried out using mechanical wear testing under generic walking conditions. Used for this purpose is the International Standards Organization's generic walking profile. Recently this standard was updated by reversing the direction of anterior/posterior translation and internal/external rotation. The effects of this change have not been investigated, and therefore, it is unknown if comparisons between wear tests utilizing the old and new version of the standard are valid. In this study, we used a finite element model along with a frictional energy-based wear model to compare the kinematic inputs, contact conditions, and wear from the older and newer versions of the ISO standard. Simulator-tested components were used to validate the computational model. We found that there were no visible similarities in the contact conditions between the old and new versions of the standard. The new version of the standard had a lower wear rate but covered a larger portion of the articular surface. Locations of wear also varied considerably. The results of the study suggest that major differences between the old and new standard exist, and therefore, historical wear results should be compared with caution to newly obtained results.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFinite Element AnalysisMechanical PhenomenaPolyethyleneMaterials TestingReference StandardsPolyethylenefinite element modeling/analysis [medical]knee prosthesesorthopedic materialsstandardized testingTotal knee arthroplastywear analysis/testing [biomechanics]

Identifiers

PMID29658386
PMCPMC6022396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.