Mell Steven P, Fullam Spencer, Wimmer Markus A, Lundberg Hannah J
1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018 Jun;232(6):545-552. doi: 10.1177/0954411918770700. Epub 2018 Apr 15.
Current treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis is total knee replacement. Given that the number of total knee replacement surgeries is expected to approach 3.48 million by 2030, understanding long-term failure is important. One of the preclinical tests for total knee replacements is carried out using mechanical wear testing under generic walking conditions. Used for this purpose is the International Standards Organization's generic walking profile. Recently this standard was updated by reversing the direction of anterior/posterior translation and internal/external rotation. The effects of this change have not been investigated, and therefore, it is unknown if comparisons between wear tests utilizing the old and new version of the standard are valid. In this study, we used a finite element model along with a frictional energy-based wear model to compare the kinematic inputs, contact conditions, and wear from the older and newer versions of the ISO standard. Simulator-tested components were used to validate the computational model. We found that there were no visible similarities in the contact conditions between the old and new versions of the standard. The new version of the standard had a lower wear rate but covered a larger portion of the articular surface. Locations of wear also varied considerably. The results of the study suggest that major differences between the old and new standard exist, and therefore, historical wear results should be compared with caution to newly obtained results.
目前,终末期骨关节炎的治疗方法是全膝关节置换术。鉴于到2030年全膝关节置换手术的数量预计将接近348万例,了解长期失败情况很重要。全膝关节置换术的一项临床前测试是在一般步行条件下进行机械磨损测试。为此使用的是国际标准化组织的一般步行轮廓。最近,该标准进行了更新,前后平移和内外旋转的方向发生了反转。这一变化的影响尚未得到研究,因此,使用旧版和新版标准的磨损测试之间的比较是否有效尚不清楚。在本研究中,我们使用有限元模型以及基于摩擦能量的磨损模型来比较ISO标准旧版和新版的运动学输入、接触条件和磨损情况。使用模拟器测试的组件来验证计算模型。我们发现,新旧版本标准的接触条件没有明显相似之处。新版本标准的磨损率较低,但覆盖的关节表面部分更大。磨损位置也有很大差异。研究结果表明,新旧标准之间存在重大差异,因此,应谨慎地将历史磨损结果与新获得的结果进行比较。