Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 41 references

Tibial Implant Fixation in TKA Worth A Revision? -- How to Avoid Stress-Shielding Even for Stiff Metallic Implants

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Finite-element simulations show that stress shielding of the tibia after total knee arthroplasty can be almost completely avoided even for stiff metallic implants, provided the stem-bone interface is allowed to slide with low friction.

desk verdict A plausible and clearly-described FE concept for avoiding tibial stress shielding, but the central 'almost complete' claim rests on a single axial load case and needs full-gait and experimental follow-up before it deserves to be stated so strongly. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09611 v2 pith:RCB3J3MM submitted 2019-08-26 physics.med-ph

B. Eidel , A. Gote , C.-P. Fritzen , A. Ohrndorf , H.-J. Christ This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords totalkneearthroplastystressshieldingtibiaimplant-boneinterfacefiniteelementanalysisslidingfrictionstrainenergydensityplate-stemforcedecomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the standard way of fixing tibial implants in total knee arthroplasty is worth a revision. Using finite-element simulations of a CT-derived tibia, it shows that stress shielding in proximal bone is driven less by the stiffness mismatch between metal and bone than by how rigidly the stem is connected to bone. The central claim is that if the stem-bone interface is made compliant by sliding friction with a low friction coefficient, the axial load passes mainly through the tray into proximal bone, and post-surgery strain energy density stays close to pre-surgery levels even for stiff cobalt-chrome or titanium implants. The paper introduces the plate-to-stem force decomposition ratio as a reliable indicator of post-surgery bone-loading changes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the load-partition identity $F_{\text{axial}} = F_{\text{axial,plate}} + F_{\text{axial,stem}}$ together with the percental strain energy density difference $SED^{\text{diff}} = (SED^{\text{post-TKA}} - SED^{\text{pre-TKA}})/SED^{\text{pre-TKA}}$. The plate-to-stem force decomposition ratio is the central diagnostic: when the plate transmits most of the axial force, SED reduction is small and proximal; when the stem transmits most, shielding is pronounced and extends distally. The enabling mechanism is a compliant stem-bone interface realized by sliding friction at low friction coefficient, which decouples the implant's high stiffness from bone loading.

What would settle it

Run the same implant geometry under a full gait load envelope, including anterior-posterior shear, varus-valgus moment, and muscle forces, with a low-friction stem; if the stem then transmits most of the axial force or the proximal-tibia SED drops substantially below pre-surgery levels, the central claim that sliding friction preserves proximal loading would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that stress shielding can be avoided even for a metallic implant despite the large implant-to-bone stiffness mismatch, if the stem-bone interface is sufficiently compliant in terms of sliding friction conditions. For a fully cemented stem, the plate-stem load share can be as low as 17:83 for CoCr, meaning the stem carries most of the axial force and proximal bone is shielded; with a smooth sliding stem at coefficient of friction 0.2 or 0.0, the balance flips so the plate carries the majority of the load. Consequently the post-surgery strain energy density reduction is confined to small proximal regions and modest magnitude. The paper further argues that this plate-based transfer mimics the natural pre-surgery force transmission through the resection plane, and that the standard geometry of plate-stem implants can be preserved.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations load the tibia with a single axial force and no shear, muscle, or ligament forces, so the predicted plate-dominated load transfer may not survive realistic gait loading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tibial implant with a smooth, low-friction stem surface should preserve proximal bone loading after total knee arthroplasty, making stress-shielding bone resorption unlikely, according to the simulations.
  • For sliding friction conditions, implant material stiffness no longer controls stress shielding: a CoCr or titanium stem performs about as well as an all-polyethylene one, so surgeons need not choose a compliant material to protect bone.
  • The plate-to-stem force ratio can serve as a design indicator in pre-clinical testing: an implant whose load share is plate-dominated under axial loading can be expected to show minimal SED loss in proximal tibia.
  • The proposed concept keeps standard implant geometry and the cemented tray-bone interface, so the only surgical change is the stem surface finishing, such as a diamond-like carbon coating with low friction.
  • Because the stem is no longer rigidly fixed, revision surgery would face less bone loss and no cemented stem to remove.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same decoupling holds under multi-axial gait loads, the low-friction-stem principle could generalize to other intramedullary implants such as femoral or shoulder stems, where bending loads are larger; this is a testable extension the paper does not make.
  • The paper's axial-only loading is the load-bearing premise; under shear and bending, a smooth stem may still engage bone through normal contact, so the plate-stem ratio could shift and the SED benefit could shrink.
  • A polished stem may trade stress shielding for increased subsidence risk; the paper argues that debris-free micromotion is tolerable, but a long-term clinical study would be needed to confirm that primary stability is not compromised.
  • The plate-stem ratio could be used as a fast surrogate in implant optimization, but only if it is validated against full gait simulations and experimental strain measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports finite element simulations of a tibial tray-and-stem implant in total knee arthroplasty, using a CT-derived heterogeneous model of a human tibia. The study varies stem extension length (5, 40, 75 mm), implant material (Ti, CoCr, all-PE), and implant-bone interface conditions (full cementation, surface cementation with osseointegration, and low-friction sliding contact with coefficients 0.2 and 0.0). Two output measures are used: the decomposition of the axial joint force into plate-mediated and stem-mediated parts (Eq. 5), and the percent change in strain energy density (SED) relative to the pre-surgery state (Eq. 7). The central claim is that, when the stem-bone interface is made compliant by sliding friction, the axial force is transmitted predominantly through the tibial plate, stress shielding is almost completely avoided even for stiff metallic implants, and the plate:stem force ratio is a reliable indicator of post-surgery SED changes. The proposed clinical realization is a smooth stem surface, e.g., a diamond-like carbon coating, combined with surface cementation of the baseplate.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would be a valuable conceptual contribution: it challenges the common view that stress shielding in TKA is an inevitable consequence of implant-to-bone stiffness mismatch, and it proposes a mechanically explicit, surgically feasible modification of the stem-bone interface. The study has notable strengths: it uses CT-based heterogeneous bone properties, published material constants, a pre-surgery baseline for SED comparison, systematic parameter variation, and it makes the reconstructed bone model and finite element discretizations available as a supplement. The fracture-mechanical argument is internally consistent, and the force-decomposition metric is a useful explanatory device. However, the quantitative conclusion that stress shielding is 'almost completely' avoided rests on a single static axial load case and has no experimental or clinical validation; as a result, the significance is conditional on additional loading and validation evidence.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.2.2 and Equation (4)] The manuscript would benefit from reporting the element count, element size, and the convergence behavior of the SED results. SED values in heterogeneous bone can be mesh-sensitive, especially at contact interfaces and stem tips, and no mesh-convergence information is given. Since the paper makes quantitative comparisons across configurations, a brief convergence statement would substantially increase confidence in the reported ratios and SED differences.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'implant-to-stem interface conditions' in the Abstract is imprecise; the paper actually varies the implant-bone interface, not a stem-to-implant interface. Please revise the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FE predictions and the plate:stem indicator are derived outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation is the CT-based finite element analysis itself. The tibia model, boundary conditions (Sec. 2.2.1), material properties (Sec. 2.2.2), interface variants (Sec. 2.2.3), and outcome metrics (Eqs. 5-7) are all stated independently of the conclusions. The plate:stem force decomposition is computed from the FE results rather than fitted to the SED outcomes, and the SED deviations are evaluated relative to the pre-surgery reference. The friction coefficient sweep is a parametric study, not a calibration of any parameter to the target stress-shielding result. The self-citation to Eidel et al. (2018) in Sec. 4.6 is an analogy and conceptual transfer; the paper does not rely on that citation as the proof of its tibial conclusions, but rather on the simulations reported here. The acknowledged limitations, e.g., a single axial load without shear, muscles, or ligaments (Sec. 4.5), affect external validity and clinical transferability, but they do not make the derivation circular. No equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain reduces the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the diamond-like carbon coating is an existing material cited from the literature. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about bone material behavior, the SED-remodeling link, and the representativeness of a single axial load case. The two friction coefficients are hand-chosen design parameters, not fitted to the outcome.

free parameters (2)
  • Friction coefficient for sliding interface (cof=0.2) = 0.2
    Chosen to represent a low-friction regime achievable with diamond-like carbon coatings; not fitted to data. The main conclusion depends on the friction being low.
  • Friction coefficient for idealized smooth interface (cof=0.0) = 0.0
    Idealized perfectly smooth interface used as a limiting case; not physically realized, but defines the boundary of the design space.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bone is isotropic, linearly elastic with Poisson ratio 0.3
    Invoked in Section 2.2.2; supported by cited literature for linear elasticity, but isotropy and constant Poisson ratio are simplifications of real bone behavior.
  • domain assumption CT number to density and Young's modulus conversion (Rho et al. 1995) applies to this proximal tibia
    Section 2.1, equations (3) and (4); an external empirical calibration, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption SED deviation from pre-surgery state is a valid predictor of bone remodeling and stress shielding
    Section 2.2.4; widely used in biomechanics, but the link from SED reduction to actual bone resorption is indirect and not validated for this specific implant.
  • ad hoc to paper A single axial static load case (2x543 N) is sufficient to evaluate stress shielding
    Section 2.2.1; the paper restricts to pure axial forces with no shear, muscles, or ligaments. Acknowledged as a limitation in Section 4.5.
  • ad hoc to paper Constant cement mantle thickness and perfect sticking at cement interfaces
    Section 2.2.3 and Section 4.5; acknowledged idealizations that could affect force transmission in the cemented cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tibial Implant Fixation in TKA Worth A Revision? -- How to Avoid Stress-Shielding Even for Stiff Metallic Implants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCB3J3MM

@misc{pith2026190809611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tibial Implant Fixation in TKA Worth A Revision? -- How to Avoid Stress-Shielding Even for Stiff Metallic Implants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCB3J3MM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09611}
}
read the original abstract

In total knee arthroplasty (TKA) force is transmitted into the tibia by a combined plate-stem device along with cemented or cementless stem fixation. The present work analyzes this force transmission in finite element simulations with the main aim to avoid reported postsurgical bone density reduction as a consequence of a reduced tibial bone loading. In the numerical analysis different implant materials, stem/extension lengths and implant-to-stem interface conditions are considered, from a stiff fully cemented fixation to sliding contact conditions with a low friction coefficient. The impact of these variations on bone loading changes are measured by (i) decomposing the total force into parts mediated by the plate and by the stem and by (ii) post-surgery strain energy density (SED) deviations. Based on a bionics-inspired perspective on how nature in pre-operative conditions carries out force transfer from the knee joint into the tibia, a modified implant-bone interface is suggested that alters force transmission towards physiological conditions while preserving the geometries of the standard plate-stem endoprosthesis design. The key aspect is that the axial force is predominantly transmitted through the plate into proximal bone which requires a compliant bone-stem interface as realized by sliding friction conditions at a low friction coefficient. These interface conditions avoid stress shielding almost completely, preserve pre-surgery bone loading such that bone resorption is not likely to occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09611 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Pre-surgery tibial BCs, full force transmission in the cross-section. (b) Post surgery tibial BCs, force transmission decomposed into plate part and stem part.(c) Medial and lateral surfaces of PE insert element on which the respective loads are acting, contact areas in red color. Notice, that –opposed to the sketches (a) and (b) the real stress distribu￾tions in a cutting plane of the proximal tibia is strongly… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tibial device: (a) Orientation of resection plane, (b-d) tibial device with base plate and PE insert on top of it, the two fins for rotational stiffness and conical stems with extensions of various lengths, (e) the fully cemented case. A similar metric based on von-Mises stress instead of SED is used by Fraldi et al. [2010] –referred to as Stress Shielding Intensity SSI– and by Boyle and Kim [2011]. For a comparison… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Post-surgery excess SED: SED increase in (a) planes perpendicular to the z￾axis and (b) in a cross section along the stem axis, (c) pre-surgery SED distribution adapted to spongious tibia and (d) Young’s modulus distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    P. F. Sharkey, P. M. Lichstein, C. Shen, A. T. Tokarski, J. Parvizi, Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today---has anything changed after 10 years?, J. Arthroplasty 29 (9) (2014) 1774--1778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024

    work page doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024 2014

  3. [3]

    A. J. Carr, O. Robertsson, S. Graves, A. J. Price, N. K. Arden, A. Judge, D. J. Beard, Knee replacement, Lancet 379 (9823) (2012) 1331--1340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60752-6 2012

  4. [4]

    Gallo, S

    J. Gallo, S. B. Goodman, Y. T. Konttinen, M. A. Wimmer, M. Holinka, Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms, Acta Biomater. 9 (9) (2013) 8046--8058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2013.05.005 doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.05.005 2013

  5. [5]

    J. R. Martin, C. D. Watts, D. L. Levy, R. H. Kim, Medial tibial stress shielding: A limitation of cobalt chromium tibial baseplates, J. Arthroplasty 32 (2) (2017) 558--562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.027 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.027 2017

  6. [6]

    A. G. Au, V. James Raso , A. B. Liggins, A. Amirfazli, Contribution of loading conditions and material properties to stress shielding near the tibial component of total knee replacements, J. Biomech. 40 (6) (2007) 1410--1416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.05.020 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.05.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.05.020 2007

  7. [7]

    Zhang, A

    Q.-H. Zhang, A. Cossey, J. Tong, Stress shielding in periprosthetic bone following a total knee replacement: Effects of implant material, design and alignment, Med. Eng. Phys. 38 (12) (2016) 1481--1488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.09.018 doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.09.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.09.018 2016

  8. [8]

    Completo, P

    A. Completo, P. Talaia, F. Fonseca, J. A. Sim \ o es, Relationship of design features of stemmed tibial knee prosthesis with stress shielding and end-of-stem pain, Mater. Design 30 (4) (2009) 1391--1397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.071 doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.071

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.071 2009

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    C. E. H. Scott, L. C. Biant, The role of the design of tibial components and stems in knee replacement, J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 94 (8) (2012) 1009--1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28289 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28289

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    Innocenti, E

    B. Innocenti, E. Truyens, L. Labey, P. Wong, J. Victor, J. Bellemans, Can medio-lateral baseplate position and load sharing induce asymptomatic local bone resorption of the proximal tibia? a finite element study, J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 4 (1) (2009) 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186...

    2009 doi

  3. [11]

    D. T. Cawley, N. Kelly, J. P. McGarry, F. J. Shannon, Cementing techniques for the tibial component in primary total knee replacement, The Bone and Joint Journal 95-b (3) (2013) 295--300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B3 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B3

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Vanlommel, J

    J. Vanlommel, J. P. Luyckx, L. Labey, B. Innocenti, R. de Corte, J. Bellemans, Cementing the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: which technique is the best?, J. Arthroplasty 26 (3) (2011) 492--496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.107 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.107

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    D. T. Cawley, N. Kelly, A. Simpkin, F. J. Shannon, J. P. McGarry, Full and surface tibial cementation in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical investigation of stress distribution and remodeling in the tibia, Clin. Biomech. 27 (4) (2012) 390--397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/...

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    U. J. Schlegel, N. E. Bishop, K. P \"u schel, M. M. Morlock, K. Nagel, Comparison of different cement application techniques for tibial component fixation in tka, Int. Orthop. 39 (1) (2015) 47--54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2468-x doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2468-x

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    ://mri.radiology.uiowa.edu/visible_human_datasets.html

    University of Iowa Cerver College of Medicine Magnetic Resonance Research , The visible human project ct datasets https://mri.radiology.uiowa.edu/visible_human_datasets.html. ://mri.radiology.uiowa.edu/visible_human_datasets.html

  8. [16]

    ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project

    United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) , The visibile human project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project. ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_Human_Project

  9. [17]

    J. Y. Rho, M. C. Hobatho, R. B. Ashman, Relations of mechanical properties to density and ct numbers in human bone, Med. Eng. Phys. 17 (5) (1995) 347--355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1350-4533(95)97314-F doi:10.1016/1350-4533(95)97314-F

    1995 doi

  10. [18]

    Taddei, E

    F. Taddei, E. Schileo, B. Helgason, L. Cristofolini, M. Viceconti, The material mapping strategy influences the accuracy of ct-based finite element models of bones: an evaluation against experimental measurements, Med. Eng. Phys. 29 (9) (2007) 973--979. http://dx.doi.org/10.10...

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Viceconti, M

    M. Viceconti, M. Casali, B. Massari, L. Cristofolini, S. Bassini, A. Toni, The 'standardized femur program' proposal for a reference geometry to be used for the creation of finite element models of the femur, J. Biomech. 29 (9) (1996) 1241

    1996

  12. [20]

    Eidel, A

    B. Eidel, A. Gote, A. Ohrndorf, H.-J. Christ, How can a short stem hip implant preserve the natural, pre-surgery force flow? a finite element analysis on a collar cortex compression concept (co4), Med. Eng. Phys. 58 (2018) 1--12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2018.04.0...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    P. Damm, F. Graichen, A. Rohlmann, A. Bender, G. Bergmann, Total hip joint prosthesis for in vivo measurement of forces and moments, Med. Eng. Phys. 32 (1) (2010) 95--100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.10.003 doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.10.003

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

    M. M. Juszczyk, L. Cristofolini, M. Viceconti, The human proximal femur behaves linearly elastic up to failure under physiological loading conditions, J. Biomech. 44 (12) (2011) 2259--2266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.05.038 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.05.038

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    a \"a n \

    L. Grassi, S. P. V \"a \"a n \"a nen, M. Ristinmaa, J. S. Jurvelin, H. Isaksson, How accurately can subject-specific finite element models predict strains and strength of human femora? investigation using full-field measurements, J. Biomech. 49 (5) (2016) 802--806. http://dx.d...

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Schileo, L

    E. Schileo, L. Balistreri, L. Grassi, L. Cristofolini, F. Taddei, To what extent can linear finite element models of human femora predict failure under stance and fall loading configurations?, J. Biomech. 47 (14) (2014) 3531--3538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.08....

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    M. Long, H. J. Rack, Titanium alloys in total joint replacement--a materials science perspective, Biomaterials 19 (18) (1998) 1621--1639

    1998

  18. [26]

    Huiskes, H

    R. Huiskes, H. Weinans, B. van Rietbergen , The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials, Clin. Orthop. Relat. R. (274) (1992) 124--134

    1992

  19. [27]

    P. J. Ehrlich, L. E. Lanyon, Mechanical strain and bone cell function: a review, Osteoporosis Int. 13 (9) (2002) 688--700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001980200095 doi:10.1007/s001980200095

    2002 doi

  20. [28]

    C. H. Turner, Three rules for bone adaptation to mechanical stimuli, Bone 23 (5) (1998) 399--407

    1998

  21. [29]

    Ambrosi, G

    D. Ambrosi, G. A. Ateshian, E. M. Arruda, S. C. Cowin, J. Dumais, A. Goriely, G. A. Holzapfel, J. D. Humphrey, R. Kemkemer, E. Kuhl, J. E. Olberding, L. A. Taber, K. Garikipati, Perspectives on biological growth and remodeling, J. Mech Phys. Solids 59 (4) (2011) 863--883. http...

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Fraldi, L

    M. Fraldi, L. Esposito, G. Perrella, A. Cutolo, S. C. Cowin, Topological optimization in hip prosthesis design, Biomech. Model. Mechan. 9 (4) (2010) 389--402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10237-009-0183-0 doi:10.1007/s10237-009-0183-0

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Boyle, I

    C. Boyle, I. Y. Kim, Comparison of different hip prosthesis shapes considering micro-level bone remodeling and stress-shielding criteria using three-dimensional design space topology optimization, J. Biomech. 44 (9) (2011) 1722--1728. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011....

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Gefen, Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computer-designed orthopaedic screws, Med

    A. Gefen, Computational simulations of stress shielding and bone resorption around existing and computer-designed orthopaedic screws, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 40 (3) (2002) 311--322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02344213 doi:10.1007/BF02344213

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    C. Ries, M. Heinichen, F. Dietrich, E. Jakubowitz, C. Sobau, C. Heisel, Short-keeled cemented tibial components show an increased risk for aseptic loosening, Clin. Orthop. Relat. R. 471 (3) (2013) 1008--1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2630-y doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2630-y

    2013 doi

  26. [34]

    Robertson, Diamond-like amorphous carbon, Mat

    J. Robertson, Diamond-like amorphous carbon, Mat. Sci. Eng. R. 37 (4-6) (2002) 129--281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0927-796X(02)00005-0 doi:10.1016/S0927-796X(02)00005-0

    2002 doi

  27. [35]

    Grill, Tribology of diamondlike carbon and related materials: an updated review, Surface and Coatings Technology 94-95 (1997) 507--513

    A. Grill, Tribology of diamondlike carbon and related materials: an updated review, Surface and Coatings Technology 94-95 (1997) 507--513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0257-8972(97)00458-1 doi:10.1016/S0257-8972(97)00458-1

    1997 doi

  28. [36]

    C. R. Ramos-Saenz, P. A. Sundaram, N. Diffoot-Carlo, Tribological properties of ti-based alloys in a simulated bone-implant interface with ringer's solution at fretting contacts, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. 3 (8) (2010) 549--558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2010.06.006 doi:1...

    2010 doi

  29. [37]

    Galloway, M

    F. Galloway, M. Kahnt, H. Ramm, P. Worsley, S. Zachow, P. Nair, M. Taylor, A large scale finite element study of a cementless osseointegrated tibial tray, J. Biomech. 46 (11) (2013) 1900--1906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.04.021 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.04.021

    2013 doi

  30. [38]

    Bergmann, A

    G. Bergmann, A. Bender, F. Graichen, J. Dymke, A. Rohlmann, A. Trepczynski, M. O. Heller, I. Kutzner, Standardized loads acting in knee implants, PloS one 9 (1) (2014) e86035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086035 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086035

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    B. A. Knarr, J. S. Higginson, J. A. Zeni, Change in knee contact force with simulated change in body weight, Comput. Method. Biomec. 19 (3) (2016) 320--323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2015.1018193 doi:10.1080/10255842.2015.1018193

    2016

  32. [40]

    Taylor, P

    M. Taylor, P. J. Prendergast, Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices: where are we now and what are the opportunities?, J. Biomech. 48 (5) (2015) 767--778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.019 doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.019

    2015 doi

  33. [41]

    A. H. Huggler, H. A. C. Jacob, The development of the thrust plate prosthesis, in: E. W. Morscher (Ed.), Endoprosthetics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg , Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995, pp. 248--257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-79306-6 18 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-79306-6 18

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.