ArticlePloS one2018
The impact of variations in input directions according to ISO 14243 on wearing of knee prostheses.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ISO 14243 is the governing standard for wear testing of knee prostheses, but there is controversy over the correct direction of anterior-posterior (AP) displacement and loading and the correct direction of tibial rotation (TR) angles and torque. This study aimed to analyze how altering the direction of AP and TR affected wear on the tibial insert. Modifications to the conditions specified in ISO 14243-1 and ISO 14243-3 were also proposed. As such, five loading conditions were applied to FEA models of a knee prosthesis: (1) Modified ISO 14243-3 with positive AP displacement and TR angle, (2) ISO 14243-3:2004 with negative AP displacement and positive TR angle, (3) ISO 14243-3:2014 with positive AP displacement and negative TR angle, (4) Modified ISO 14243-1 with positive AP load and TR torque, and (5) ISO 14243-1:2009 with negative AP load and positive TR torque. This study found that changing the input directions for AP and TR according to ISO 14243-1 and 14243-3 had an influence on the wear rate and wear contours on the tibial insert model. However, the extent of wear varies depending on the design features of the tibial insert and shape of the input curves. For displacement control according to ISO 14243-3, changing the direction of AP displacement had a marked influence on the wear rate (272.77%), but changing the direction of TR angle had a much lower impact (2.17%). For load control according to ISO 14243-1, reversing the AP load (ISO 14243-1:2009) only increased the wear rate by 6.73% in comparison to the modified ISO 14243-1 conditions. The clinical relevance of this study is that the results demonstrate that tibial wear is affected by the direction of application of AP and TR. Incorrect application of the loading conditions during the design stage may lead to an ineffective preclinical evaluation and could subsequently influence implant longevity in clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.