ArticleBone & joint research2022
Total and partial knee arthroplasty implants that maintain native load transfer in the tibia.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2022. 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.
- Stochastic lattice-based porous implant design for improving the stress transfer in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Load transfer in bone after partial, multi-compartmental, and total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Bioreactor analyses of tissue ingrowth, ongrowth and remodelling around implants: An alternative to live animal testing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- The risk of tibial eminence avulsion fracture with bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty : a finite element analysis.Bone & joint research · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsUnicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA) are successful treatments for osteoarthritis, but the solid metal implants disrupt the natural distribution of stress and strain which can lead to bone loss over time. This generates problems if the implant needs to be revised. This study investigates whether titanium lattice UKA and TKA implants can maintain natural load transfer in the proximal tibia.
methodsIn a cadaveric model, UKA and TKA procedures were performed on eight fresh-frozen knee specimens, using conventional (solid) and titanium lattice tibial implants. Stress at the bone-implant interfaces were measured and compared to the native knee.
resultsTitanium lattice implants were able to restore the mechanical environment of the native tibia for both UKA and TKA designs. Maximum stress at the bone-implant interface ranged from 1.2 MPa to 3.3 MPa compared with 1.3 MPa to 2.7 MPa for the native tibia. The conventional solid UKA and TKA implants reduced the maximum stress in the bone by a factor of 10 and caused > 70% of bone surface area to be underloaded compared to the native tibia.
conclusionTitanium lattice implants maintained the natural mechanical loading in the proximal tibia after UKA and TKA, but conventional solid implants did not. This is an exciting first step towards implants that maintain bone health, but such implants also have to meet fatigue and micromotion criteria to be clinically viable. Cite this article:
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.