Back

Experimental and computational evaluation of knee implant wear and creep under in vivo and ISO boundary conditions

Dreyer, M. J.; Hosseini Nasab, S. H.; Favre, P.; Amstad, F.; Crockett, R.; Taylor, W. R.; Weisse, B.

2023-05-11 orthopedics
10.1101/2023.05.09.23289712 medRxiv
Show abstract

Experimental knee implant wear testing according to ISO 14243 is a standard procedure, but it inherently possesses limitations for preclinical evaluations due to extended testing periods and costly infrastructure. In an effort to overcome these limitations, we hereby develop and experimentally validate a finite element (FE) based algorithm, including a novel cross-shear and contact pressure dependent wear and creep model, and apply it towards understanding the sensitivity of wear outcomes to the applied boundary conditions. Specifically, we investigated the application of in vivo data for level walking from the publicly available "Stan" dataset, which contains single representative tibiofemoral loads and kinematics derived from in vivo measurements of six subjects, and compared wear outcomes against those obtained using the ISO standard boundary conditions. To provide validation of the numerical models, this comparison was reproduced experimentally on a six-station knee wear simulator over 5 million cycles, testing the same implant Stans data was obtained from. Experimental implementation of Stans boundary conditions in displacement control resulted in approximately three times higher wear rates (4.4 vs. 1.6 mm3 per million cycles) and a more anterior wear pattern compared to the ISO standard in force control. While a force-controlled ISO FE model was unable to reproduce the bench test kinematics, and thus wear rate, displacement-controlled FE models accurately predicted the laboratory wear tests for both ISO and Stan boundary conditions. The credibility of the in silico wear and creep model was further established per the ASME V&V-40 standard. The model is thus suitable for supporting future patient specific models and development of novel implant designs.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.