ArticleHeliyon2024
Decreased stress shielding with poly-ether-ether-ketone tibial implant for total knee arthroplasty - A preliminary study using finite element analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The relationship between stress shielding, bone density changes and implant migration, failure and fracture after total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the mechanical mismatch between cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy tibial implant and bone has been implicated in stress shielding and subsequent implant failure and bone resorption. This study investigates the biomechanical advantages of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) tibial implant, which exhibit properties analogous to those of the surrounding bone. A finite element analysis (FEA) was employed to assess and compare the biomechanical performances of PEEK and CoCr tibial implants in patients with and without osteoporosis. Four FEA models were constructed with PEEK and CoCr alloy implants in normal and osteoporotic tibias. Based on previous literature and our clinical experience, stresses measurements were taken at 16 points on the tibial plateau and 8 points on the two surfaces which were 10 mm and 20 mm apart from the tibial plateau, with specific regions quantified for stress shielding. The results showed significant differences in stress distribution between PEEK and CoCr implants. The PEEK implants exhibited higher equivalent stresses on the tibial plateau in all models (normal bone: 0.22 ± 0.07 MPa vs. 0.13 ± 0.06 MPa, p < 0.01; osteoporotic bone: 0.39 ± 0.06 MPa vs. 0.17 ± 0.07 MPa, p < 0.01). In non-osteoporotic models, the mean equivalent stresses on proximal tibial surfaces were similarly elevated for PEEK implants (0.29 ± 0.13 MPa vs. 0.21 ± 0.08 MPa, p = 0.02). The CoCr implants demonstrated more stress shielding across all measured regions (tibial plateau: 23.47% vs. 2.73%; surface 1: 15.93% vs. 1.37%; surface 2: 10.71% vs. 6.56%). These disparities were even more pronounced in osteoporotic models in the CoCr group (tibial plateau: 32.50% vs. 8.36%). The maximum equivalent stresses on the tibial plateau further supported this trend (normal bone: 1.02 MPa vs. 0.52 MPa; osteoporotic bone: 1.43 MPa vs. 0.67 MPa). These data confirm the hypothesis that a PEEK tibial implant can reduce peri-prosthetic stress shielding, suggesting that PEEK implants have the capability to distribute loads more uniformly and maintain a closer approximation to physiological conditions.
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.