Evaluation of the Tibiofemoral Contact Characteristics of a Customized Surface-Guided Knee Implant

  • Shabnam Pejhan
  • Ida Khosravipour
  • Trevor Gascoyne
  • Eric Bohm
  • Jan-Mels Brandt
  • Yunhua Luo
  • Urs Wyss
Original Article


A surface-guided total knee replacement (TKR) aims to achieve close to normal kinematics through specially shaped tibiofemoral articulating surfaces. The resulting geometry of the TKR components affects the tibiofemoral contact mechanics. Therefore, evaluation of the contact characteristics of the implant is critical, as the tibiofemoral contact stress influences the short-term and long-term performance and durability of the implants. In this study, the contact behavior at the tibiofemoral articulating interface for a customized surface-guided TKR was studied. The contact area and mean contact stress at specific flexion angles were measured mechanically by pressure sensitive films to validate the outcomes from finite element analysis (FEA) under similar load conditions. Two activities of daily living were studied; lunging and squatting. As expected, FEA predicted larger contact areas at various flexion angles due to the limited sensitivity range of the pressure sensitive films. During lunging and squatting, the contact area increased as the flexion angle reached 90°, and decreased as the knee was flexed to higher angles. The mean contact pressure was less than 10 MPa at 120 degrees of flexion under squatting load. The outcomes revealed that a high range of motion can be achieved, while the mean contact pressure remains below the material limits of the tibial polyethylene insert.


Total knee replacement Pressure-sensitive film Finite element Surface-guided 



This work was supported by DePuy Synthes, the University of Manitoba, and the Orthopedic Innovation Center. We are grateful for the technical support and contributions of Leah Guenther, Meaghan Coates and Lawrence Cruz at the Orthopedic Innovation Center.


  1. 1.
    Chapman-Sheath, P., Bruce, W., Chung, W., Morberg, P., Gillies, R., & Walsh, W. (2003). In vitro assessment of proximal polyethylene contact surface areas and stresses in mobile bearing knees. Medical Engineering & Physics, 25, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rawlinson, J., & Bartel, D. (2002). Flat medial–lateral conformity in total knee replacements does not minimize contact stresses. Journal of Biomechanics, 35, 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halloran, J. P., Easley, S. K., Petrella, A. J., & Rullkoetter, P. J. (2005). Comparison of deformable and elastic foundation finite element simulations for predicting knee replacement mechanics. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 127, 813–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartel, D., Rawlinson, J., Burstein, A., Ranawat, C., & Flynn, W., Jr. (1995). Stresses in polyethylene components of contemporary total knee replacements. Clinical Orthopaedics, 317, 76–82.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barink, M., De Waal Malefijt, M., Celada, P., Vena, P., Van Kampen, A., & Verdonschot, N. (2008). A mechanical comparison of high-flexion and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 222, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simpson, D., Gray, H., D’Lima, D., Murray, D., & Gill, H. (2008). The effect of bearing congruency, thickness and alignment on the stresses in unicompartmental knee replacements. Clinical Biomechanics, 23, 1148–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Willing, R., & Kim, I. Y. (2009). Three dimensional shape optimization of total knee replacements for reduced wear. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 38, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zdero, R., Fenton, P., Rudan, J., & Bryant, J. (2001). Fuji film and ultrasound measurement of total knee arthroplasty contact areas. Journal of Arthroplasty, 16, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Lima, D., Chen, P. C., & Colwell, C. W., Jr. (2001). Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity, and knee alignment. Clinical Orthopaedics, 392, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shiramizu, K., Vizesi, F., Bruce, W., Herrmann, S., & Walsh, W. R. (2009). Tibiofemoral contact areas and pressures in six high flexion knees. International Orthopaedics, 33, 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, P. S. (2015). The design and pre-clinical evaluation of knee replacements for osteoarthritis. Journal of Biomechanics, 48, 742–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sathasivam, S., & Walker, P. (1998). Computer model to predict subsurface damage in tibial inserts of total knees. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 16, 564–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fregly, B. J., Sawyer, W. G., Harman, M. K., & Banks, S. A. (2005). Computational wear prediction of a total knee replacement from in vivo kinematics. Journal of Biomechanics, 38, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godest, A., Beaugonin, M., Haug, E., Taylor, M., & Gregson, P. (2002). Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis. Journal of Biomechanics, 35, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liau, J., Hu, C., Cheng, C., Huang, C., & Lo, W. (2001). The influence of inserting a Fuji pressure sensitive film between the tibiofemoral joint of knee prosthesis on actual contact characteristics. Clinical Biomechanics, 16, 160–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pejhan, S., Bohm, E., Brandt, J., & Wyss, U. (2016). Design and virtual evaluation of a customized surface-guided knee implant. Procedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 230, 949–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wyss, U., Amiri, S., & Cooke, T. D. V. (2010). Knee prosthesis. Patent:US20120179265.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kurtz, S. (2009). Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacement and medical devices. UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Willing, R., & Kim, I. Y. (2009). A holistic numerical model to predict strain hardening and damage of UHMWPE under multiple total knee replacement kinematics and experimental validation. Journal of Biomechanics, 42, 2520–2527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khosravipour, I., Luo, Y., Pejhan, S., & Wyss, U. (2015). Contact stress analysis of surface guided knee implant: Proceedings of the 25th CANCAM, London. Ontario: Canada.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM standard: F2083-11: Standard specifications for total knee prosthesis (2011).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergmann, G., Bender, A., Graichen, F., Dymke, J., Rohlmann, A., et al. (2014). Standardized loads acting in knee implants. PLoS ONE, 9, e86035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith, S. M., Cockburn, R. A., Hemmerich, A., Li, R. M., & Wyss, U. P. (2008). Tibiofemoral joint contact forces and knee kinematics during squatting. Gait Posture, 27, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiss, J. M., Noble, P. C., Conditt, M. A., Kohl, H. W., Roberts, S., Cook, K. F., et al. (2002). What Functional Activities are Important to Patients with Knee Replacements? Clin Orthop, 404, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morra, E. A., & Greenwald, A. S. (2003). Effects of walking gait on ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene damage in unicompartmental knee systems: A finite element study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), 85(4), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Halloran, J. P., Petrella, A. J., & Rullkoetter, P. J. (2005). Explicit finite element modeling of total knee replacement mechanics. Journal of Biomechanics, 38(2), 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khosravipour, I. (2015). Contact stress analysis of Surface guided knee implant using finite element modeling. Dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Standard Organization. (2009). Implants for surgery—wear of total knee-joint prostheses—Part 1: Loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with load control and corresponding environmental conditions for test-ISO 14243–1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwanese Society of Biomedical Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shabnam Pejhan
    • 1
    • 4
  • Ida Khosravipour
    • 1
  • Trevor Gascoyne
    • 2
  • Eric Bohm
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jan-Mels Brandt
    • 1
  • Yunhua Luo
    • 1
  • Urs Wyss
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Innovation CentreWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Section of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations