ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2025
Advancements in Biomedical Sensors for Early Detection of Failure in Hip and Knee Implants: Scoping Review on Potential Sensors for Implant Integration.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite significant advancements in hip and knee joint implant technology, 6.4% of implants fail within the first ten years due to aseptic loosening, instability, and/or infection. Implants equipped with sensors show promise in early failure detection, enabling early and reduced intervention. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of biomedical sensors and their potential for integration into hip- and knee implants.
methodsA comprehensive search of databases PubMed and Embase was performed. Inclusion criteria were sensors to detect failure causes infection, inflammation, loosening or wear; developed for biomedical applications; ex vivo, in vivo and/or in vitro studies. The sensors were analysed based on criteria per sensor characteristics (e.g. accuracy, durability, response time) relevant for implant integration.
results49 articles were included presenting 52 sensors: 24 pressure and force, 6 strain, 15 acidity, 4 temperature, and 3 bacterial detection (3 dual sensing elements). Among these, three sensors were specifically designed for hip- and knee implants. The remaining 46 were developed for other biomedical applications. Our analysis identified two strain and seven acidity sensors that met the criteria for detecting hip- and knee implant failure. Two bacteria sensors showed potential for short-term use post-implantation, aligning with the critical period for periprosthetic infection, but the reporting frequency was too low to draw proper conclusions. No wear (particle) sensor was found.
conclusionWe found a significant gap in sensors that can detect wear particles. Future work on continuous implant monitoring should focus on reducing risk and the enhancement of sensor durability and longevity.
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.