Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128715›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2022

Surface texture analysis of different focal knee resurfacing implants after 6 and 12 months in vivo in a goat model.

Emin E Aşık, Alicia H A Damen, Pieter P W van Hugten, Alex K Roth, Jens C Thies, Pieter J Emans, Keita Ito, Corrinus C van Donkelaar, Maria Pastrama

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surface texture analysis of different focal knee resurfacing implants after 6 and 12 months in vivo in a goat model.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2022
    Article
  2. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emin E AşıkOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3407-5356
Alicia H A DamenOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0940-7424
Pieter P W van HugtenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Alex K RothDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Jens C ThiesDSM Biomedical BV, Geleen, The Netherlands.
Pieter J EmansDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Keita ItoOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7372-4072
Corrinus C van DonkelaarOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2121-5604
Maria PastramaOrthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9813-7512
Eindhoven University of Technology · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLDSM (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical success of osteochondral implants depends significantly on their surface properties. In vivo, an implant may roughen over time which can decrease its performance. The present study investigates whether changes in the surface texture of metal and two types of polycarbonate urethane (PCU) focal knee resurfacing implants (FKRIs) occurred after 6 and 12 months of in vivo articulation with native goat cartilage. PCU implants which differed in stem stiffness were compared to investigate whether the stem fixating the implant in the bone influences surface topography. Using optical profilometry, 19 surface texture parameters were evaluated, including spatial distribution and functional parameters obtained from the material ratio curve. For metal implants, wear during in vivo articulation occurred mainly via material removal, as shown by the significant decrease of the core-valley transition from 91.5% in unused implants to 90% and 89.6% after 6 and 12 months, respectively. Conversely, for PCU implants, the wear mechanism consisted in either filling of the valleys or flattening of the surface by dulling of sharp peaks. This was illustrated in the change in roughness skewness from negative to positive values over 12 months of in vivo articulation. Implants with a softer stem experienced the most deformation, shown by the largest change in material ratio curve parameters. We therefore showed, using a detailed surface profilometry analysis, that the surface texture of metal and two different PCU FKRIs changes in a different way after articulation against cartilage, revealing distinct wear mechanisms of different implant materials.

Indexed as

GoatsKnee ProsthesisAnimalsSurface PropertiesUrethaneUrethanearticular cartilageFKRIosteoarthritisprofilometrysurface texture

Identifiers

PMID35128715
PMCPMC9790236
OpenAlexW4210298750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.