Advertisement

Testing and Tribology

How Were Designs Tested for Wear, Strength, and Kinematics?
  • Peter S. Walker
Chapter
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

When the first artificial knees were invented, almost no testing methods were available. The first tests were related to friction, lubrication, and wear (tribology). The tests consisted of measuring the friction between the sliding surfaces and the wear produced over multiple cycles. The earliest test methods applied to the mechanics of artificial knee design were to measure the laxity and stability in loaded and unloaded conditions. The tests used standard loading machines, with special fixtures added. The next goal was to study the fixation of components. Tests ranged from simple loading conditions where the interface micromotions were measured to multichannel machines for comparing the fixation of different tibial component designs mounted in bone specimens. The basic data on the forces in the knee during activities, available from 1970, was a major benefit in all of the testing. This is particularly the case for knee simulators for measuring the long-term wear. The initial machines were single channel, but the first multichannel machines, developed in the 1990s, were needed for practical wear testing. The Oxford Knee Rig has been useful for studying kinematics and forces, while robots have been used mainly for studying ligament behavior. Tests are essential to design, and the FDA requires specific tests to gain approval for clinical application.

Keywords

Wear of knees Friction of knees Laxity testing Constraint tests Fixation testing Interface micromotion Knee simulator Forces in the knee Oxford test rig Robot knee testing ASTM standards 

References

  1. Abdelgaied A, Fisher J, Jennings LM. A comparison between electromechanical and pneumatic-controlled knee simulators for the investigation of wear of total knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med. 2017;231(7):643–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann G, Bender A, Graichen F, et al. Standardized loads acting in knee implants. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86035.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Branson PJ, Steege JW, Wixson RL, Lewis J, Stulberg SD. Rigidity of initial fixation with uncemented tibial knee implants. J Arthroplast. 1989;4(1):21–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks PJ, Walker PS, Scott RD. Tibial component fixation in deficient tibial bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;184:302–8.Google Scholar
  5. Colley J, Cameron HU, Freeman MA, Swanson SA. Loosening of the femoral component in surface replacement of the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1978;92(1):31–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Currier BH, Currier JH, Franklin KJ, Mayor MB, Reinitz SD, Van Citters DW. Comparison of wear and oxidation in retrieved conventional and highly cross-linked UHMWPE tibial inserts. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(12):2349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DesJardins JD, Walker PS, Haider H, Perry J. The use of a force-controlled dynamic knee simulator to quantify the mechanical performance of total knee replacement designs during functional activity. J Biomech. 2000;33(10):1231–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorr LD, Lindberg JP, Claude-Faugere M, Malluche HH. Factors influencing the intrusion of methylmethacrylate into human tibiae. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;183:147–52.Google Scholar
  9. Ducheyne P, Kagan A 2nd, Lacey JA. Failure of total knee arthroplasty due to loosening and deformation of the tibial component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(3):384–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezzet KA, Hershey AL, D’Lima DD, Irby SE, Kaufman KR, Colwell CW. Patella tracking in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(7):838–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick CK, Maag C, Clary CW, Metcalfe A, Langhorn J, Rullkoetter PJ. Validation of a new computational 6-DOF knee simulator during dynamic activities. J Biomech. 2016;49(14):3177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman MA, Bradley GW, Blaha JD, Insler HP. Cementless fixation of the tibial component for the ICLH knee. J R Soc Med. 1982;75(6):418–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fregly BJ, Besier TF, Lloyd DG, et al. Grand challenge competition to predict in vivo knee loads. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(4):503–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodfellow J, Hungerford DS, Zindel M. Patello-femoral joint mechanics and pathology. 1. Functional anatomy of the patello-femoral joint. J Bone Joint Surg. 1976;58(3):287–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman SB. The effects of micromotion and particulate materials on tissue differentiation: bone chamber studies in rabbits. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica. 1994;65(sup258):1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grupp TM, Fritz B, Kutzner I, Schilling C, Bergmann G, Schwiesau J. Vitamin E stabilised polyethylene for total knee arthroplasty evaluated under highly demanding activities wear simulation. Acta Biomater. 2017;48:415–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunston FH. Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1971;53(2):272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haider H. Tribological assessment of UHMWPE in the knee, Chapter 32. In: Kurtz SM, editor. UHMWPE biomaterials handbook – ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacement and medical devices. 3rd ed: New York, USA: Elsevier Inc; 2016. p. 559–634.Google Scholar
  19. Haider H, Garvin K. Rotating platform versus fixed-bearing total knees: an in vitro study of wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(11):2677–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Haider H, Kaddick C. Wear of mobile bearing knees: is it necessarily less? J ASTM Int. 2012;9(2):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haider H, Weisenburger JN, Kurtz SM, et al. Does vitamin E-stabilized ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene address concerns of cross-linked polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast. 2012;27(3):461–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harding ML, Harding L, Goodfellow JW. A preliminary report of a simple rig to aid study of the functional anatomy of the cadaver human knee joint. J Biomech. 1977;10(8):517–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heim CS, Postak PD, Plaxton NA, Greenwald AS. Classification of mobile-bearing knee designs: mobility and constraint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A Suppl 2(Pt 1):32–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koh YG, Lee JA, Chung PK, Kang KT. Computational analysis of customized cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty restoration of native knee joint biomechanics. Artif Organs. 2019;43(5):504–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J. Strength of the cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1982;163:290–9.Google Scholar
  26. Li G, DeFrate LE, Zayontz S, Park SE, Gill TJ. The effect of tibiofemoral joint kinematics on patellofemoral contact pressures under simulated muscle loads. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:801–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, Judy. 2016. UCLA researchers team up with robot for solutions to debilitating knee injuries http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-researchers-team-up-with-robot-for-solutions-to-debilitating-knee-injuries
  28. Maletsky LP, Hillberry BM. Simulating dynamic activities using a 5-axis simulator. J Biomech Eng. 2005;127:123–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markolf KL, Finerman GM, Amstutz HC. In vitro measurements of knee stability after bicondylar replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(4):547–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marra MA, Andersen MS, Damsgaard M, Koopman BFJM, Janssen D, Verdonschot N. Evaluation of a surrogate contact model in force-dependent kinematic simulations of Total knee replacement. J Biomech Eng. 2017;1:139(8).Google Scholar
  31. McCutchen CW. The frictional properties of animal joints. Wear. 1962;5(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison J. The mechanics of the knee joint in relation to normal walking. J Biomech. 1970;3(1):51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morrison J. Bioengineering analysis of force actions transmitted by the knee joint. Biomed Eng. 1968;3:164–70.Google Scholar
  34. Nogi J, Caldwell JW, Kauzlarich JJ, Thompson RC. Load testing of geometric and polycentric total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;114:235–42.Google Scholar
  35. Oral E, Muratoglu OK. Vitamin E diffused, highly crosslinked UHMWPE: a review. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):215–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Postak PD, Heim CS, Greenwald AS. The role of constraint in contemporary modular knee designs. Surg Technol Int. 1994;3:541–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Rimnac C, Pruitt L. How do material properties influence wear and fracture mechanisms? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16:S94–S100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowell SL, Reyes CR, Malchau H, Muratoglu OK. In vivo oxidative stability changes of highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings: an ex vivo investigation. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(10):1828–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rullkoetter PJ, Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW. How can we use computational modeling to improve Total knee arthroplasty? modeling stability and mobility in the implanted knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(Suppl 1):S33–s39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwiesau J, Schilling C, Kaddick C, et al. Definition and evaluation of testing scenarios for knee wear simulation under conditions of highly demanding daily activities. Med Eng Phys. 2013;35(5):591–600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Seedhom B, Dowson D, Wright V. Wear of solid phase formed high density polyethylene in relation to the life of artificial hips and knees. Wear. 1973;24(1):35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shaw J, Murray D. Knee joint simulator. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1973;94:15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Singerman R, Berilla J, Davy DT. Direct in vitro determination of the patellofemoral contact force for normal knees. J Biomech Eng. 1995;117:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Steiger RN, Muratoglu O, Lorimer M, Cuthbert AR, Graves SE. Lower prosthesis-specific 10-year revision rate with crosslinked than with non-crosslinked polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty: 386,104 procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(6):721–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Swanson SAV, Freeman MAR, Heath JC. Laboratory tests on total joint replacement prostheses. J Bone J Surg. 1973;55B(4):759–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor M, Bryan R, Galloway F. Accounting for patient variability in finite element analysis of the intact and implanted hip and knee: a review. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng. 2013;29(2):273–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Citters DW, Currier JH, Currier BH, Titus AJ, Major MB, Abdul MP, Berry DJ. A retrieval analysis of 1385 tibial inserts for wear, damage and oxidation: What factors are driving performance? Scientific Exhibit SE 10: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Annual Meeting March 2018, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  48. Varadarajan KM, Harry RE, Johnson T, Li G. Can in vitro systems capture the characteristic differences between the flexion-extension kinematics of the healthy and TKA knee? Med Eng Phys. 2009;31(8):899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Volz RG, Nisbet JK, Lee RW, McMurtry MG. The mechanical stability of various noncemented tibial components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:38–42.Google Scholar
  50. Walker PS, Blunn GW, Broome DR, et al. A knee simulating machine for performance evaluation of total knee replacements. J Biomech. 1997;30(1):83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walker PS, Blunn GW, Perry JP, et al. Methodology for long-term wear testing of total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;372:290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker PS, Greene D, Reilly D, Thatcher J, Ben-Dov M, Ewald FC. Fixation of tibial components of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63(2):258–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walker PS, Hsieh HH. Conformity in condylar replacement knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1977;59(2):222–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walker PS, Ranawat C, Insall J. Fixation of the tibial components of condylar replacement knee prostheses. J Biomech. 1976;9(4):269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walker PS, Wang C-J, Masse Y. Joint laxity as a design criterion for the design of condylar knee prostheses. Conference on total knee replacement, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London UK, 16–18 Sept 1974.Google Scholar
  56. White BF, D’Lima D, Drueding AC, Cox J, Carignan FJ. A simulator study of TKR kinematics using modeled soft-tissue constraint: virtual soft-tissue control for knee simulation. In: Wear of Articulating Surfaces: Understanding Joint Simulation. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2006.Google Scholar
  57. Whiteside LA, Pafford J. Load transfer characteristics of a noncemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin orthop rel res. 1989;239:168–77.Google Scholar
  58. Willing R, Walker PS. Measuring the sensitivity of total knee replacement kinematics and laxity to soft tissue imbalances. J Biomech. 2018;77:62–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zavatsky AB. A kinematic-freedom analysis of a flexed knee stance testing rig. J Biomech. 1997;30(3):277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations