ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2021
Comparison of Kinematics and Contact Mechanics in Normal Knee and Total Knee Replacements: A Computational Investigation.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstruction of normal morphology for simulated femoral condyle lesions based on shape statistical constraints and differential coordinate transformation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Effect of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining implants on three-dimensional kinematic characteristics after total knee arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2025Article
- Future Directions in Patellofemoral Imaging and 3D Modeling.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2022Review
- Biomechanical Comparison Between Porous Ti6Al4V Block and Tumor Prosthesis UHMWPE Block for the Treatment of Distal Femur Bone Defects.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
An objective of total knee replacement (TKR) is to restore the mechanical function of a normal knee. Joint kinematics and contact mechanics performance are two of the primary indices that indicate the success of TKR devices. The aim of this study was to compare the kinematics and contact mechanics of TKR and normal knee joints. An experimentally evaluated finite-element (FE) knee model was developed and used to investigate the performance of four TKR designs (fixed cruciate-retaining (CR), mobile CR, posterior-stabilized (PS), medial pivot design (MP)) and the normal knee joint during a gait cycle. The predicted kinematic results showed that the MP design presented similar kinematics to those of the normal knee joint and did not demonstrate paradoxical motion of the femur. A considerably larger contact area and lower contact pressure were found on the normal knee joint (1315 mm
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.