4.5 Article

Experimental evaluation of an elastic foundation model to predict contact pressures in knee replacements

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 36, Issue 11, Pages 1659-1668

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(03)00176-3

Keywords

dynamic modeling; contact pressure prediction; total knee replacements

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Computational wear prediction is an attractive concept for evaluating new total knee replacement designs prior to physical testing and implementation. An important hurdle to such technology is the lack of in vivo contact pressure predictions. To address this issue, this study evaluates a computationally efficient simulation approach that combines the advantages of rigid and deformable body modeling. The hybrid method uses rigid body dynamics to predict body positions and orientations and elastic foundation theory to predict contact pressures between general three-dimensional surfaces. To evaluate the method, we performed static pressure experiments with a commercial knee implant in neutral alignment using flexion angles of 0, 30, 60, and 90degrees and loads of 750, 1500, 2250, and 3000 N. Using manufacturer CAD geometry for the same implant, an elastic foundation model with linear or nonlinear polyethylene material properties was implemented within a commercial multibody dynamics software program. The model's ability to predict experimental peak and average contact pressures simultaneously was evaluated by performing dynamic simulations to find the static configuration. Both the linear and nonlinear material models predicted the average contact pressure data well, while only the linear material model could simultaneously predict the trends in the peak contact pressure data. This novel modeling approach is sufficiently fast and accurate to be used in design sensitivity and optimization studies of knee implant mechanics and ultimately wear. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available