2017
DOI: 10.1177/0954411917696519
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison between electromechanical and pneumatic-controlled knee simulators for the investigation of wear of total knee replacements

Abstract: More robust preclinical experimental wear simulation methods are required in order to simulate a wider range of activities, observed in different patient populations such as younger more active patients, as well as to fully meet and be capable of going well beyond the existing requirements of the relevant international standards. A new six-station electromechanically driven simulator (Simulation Solutions, UK) with five fully independently controlled axes of articulation for each station, capable of replicatin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 ). Each station had six degrees of freedom with five controlled axes of motion – axial load to the femoral component, femoral flexion extension, tibial internal/external rotation, tibial anterior-posterior displacement, and tibial adduction-abduction rotation ( Abdelgaied et al, 2017a ).
Fig.
…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4 ). Each station had six degrees of freedom with five controlled axes of motion – axial load to the femoral component, femoral flexion extension, tibial internal/external rotation, tibial anterior-posterior displacement, and tibial adduction-abduction rotation ( Abdelgaied et al, 2017a ).
Fig.
…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The femoral distal radius was taken as the femoral centre of rotation with a polarity of anterior tibial shift (denoted as negative anterior posterior motion) that produced femoral rollback. Abduction adduction was allowed but not controlled ( Abdelgaied et al, 2017a ).
Fig.
…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tibial and femoral components were paired for the duration of the investigation. Studies were carried out using a 6 station ProSim electropneumatic knee simulator (Simulation Solutions, UK) [23] (Figure 1). The simulator had six degrees of freedom with 4 controlled axes of motion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a change in femoral CoR may have more of an effect on wear under the fixed kinematics of displacement control, as opposed to force control where an implant would respond to a change in testing conditions with a change in kinematics. In addition, the displacement controlled ISO Standard and other displacement control testing protocols are widely used (Abdelgaied et al, 2017;Abdel-Jaber et al, 2016Ash et al, 2000;Barnett et al, 2002Barnett et al, , 2001Brandt et al, 2011;Brockett et al, 2016Brockett et al, , 2012Galvin et al, 2009;McEwen et al, 2005;Mell et al, 2018;O'Brien et al, 2014;Okazaki et al, 2019;Popoola et al, 2010), making investigations into how the choice of CoR affects wear testing under displacement control all the more necessary.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%