Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, polyethylene wear can significantly reduce the lifespan of UKA. Different bearing designs and materials for UKA have been developed to change the rate of polyethylene wear. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effect of insert conformity and material on the predicted wear in mobile-bearing UKA using a previously developed computational wear method. Two different designs were tested with the same femoral component under identical kinematic input: anatomy mimetic design (AMD) and conforming design inserts with different conformity levels. The insert materials were standard or crosslinked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). We evaluated the contact pressure, contact area, wear rate, wear depth, and volumetric wear under gait cycle loading conditions.Objectives
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for patients who require treatment of single-compartment osteoarthritis, especially for young patients. To satisfy this requirement, new patient-specific prosthetic designs have been introduced. The patient-specific UKA is designed on the basis of data from preoperative medical images. In general, knee implant design with increased conformity has been developed to provide lower contact stress and reduced wear on the tibial insert compared with flat knee designs. The different tibiofemoral conformity may provide designers the opportunity to address both wear and kinematic design goals simultaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate wear prediction with respect to tibiofemoral conformity design in patient-specific UKA under gait loading conditions by using a previously validated computational wear method. Three designs with different conformities were developed with the same femoral component: a flat design normally used in fixed-bearing UKA, a tibia plateau anatomy mimetic (AM) design, and an increased conforming design. We investigated the kinematics, contact stress, contact area, wear rate, and volumetric wear of the three different tibial insert designs.Objectives
Methods
