• 1. School of Construction Machinery, Chang'an University, Xi’an 710064, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Arthroplasty Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot 010030, P. R. China;
  • 3. School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, P. R. China;
ZHANG Zhifeng, Email: longxianglvzhe@163.com
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Posterior-stabilized total knee prostheses have been widely used in orthopedic clinical treatment of knee osteoarthritis, but the patients and surgeons are still troubled by the complications, for example severe wear and fracture of the post, as well as prosthetic loosening. Understanding the in vivo biomechanics of knee prostheses will aid in the decrease of postoperative prosthetic revision and patient dissatisfaction. Therefore, six different designs of posterior-stabilized total knee prostheses were used to establish the musculoskeletal multibody dynamics models of total knee arthroplasty respectively, and the biomechanical differences of six posterior-stabilized total knee prostheses were investigated under three simulated physiological activities: walking, right turn and squatting. The results showed that the post contact forces of PFC Sigma and Scorpio NGR prostheses were larger during walking, turning right, and squatting, which may increase the risk of the fracture and wear as well as the early loosening. The post design of Gemini SL prosthesis was more conductive to the knee internal-external rotation and avoided the edge contact and wear. The lower conformity design in sagittal plane and the later post-cam engagement resulted in the larger anterior-posterior translation. This study provides a theoretical support for guiding surgeon selection, improving posterior-stabilized prosthetic design and reducing the prosthetic failure.

Citation: CHEN Zhenxian, ZHANG Zhifeng, GAO Yongchang, ZHANG Jing, GUO Lei, JIN Zhongmin. Musculoskeletal multibody dynamics investigation of posterior-stabilized total knee prosthesis. Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 2022, 39(4): 651-659. doi: 10.7507/1001-5515.202203023 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Comparison of stent displacement and displacement force after endovascular aneurysm repair with cross-limb or parallel-limb stent
  • Next Article

    Finite element analysis of the effect of knee movable unicompartmental prosthesis insertion shape and mounting position on stress distribution in the knee joint after replacement