Advance Publication by J-STAGE Mechanical Engineering Reviews

Computational models have been widely used for more than four decades to evaluate the mechanical behavior of knee joint arthroplasty. Validated computational models provide a virtual platform to develop optimal articular surfaces which achieve desired implant characteristics. This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of the computational models available to represent knee joint arthroplasty. A brief overview of knee joint anatomy and arthroplasty is provided, followed by computational model development techniques. Use of the computational models in development of knee joint arthroplasty and pre- or post-clinical evaluation is summarized. This review paper presents current modeling capabilities for implant design and stability, with further suggestions for studying the performance of implants on a population level. However, simulations must include closely corroborated multi-domain analysis in order to account for real-life variability. et al. showed that a rounded post-cam design provided less stress concentration during flexion with rotation and at hyperextension compared with a squared design (Watanabe, Koga, Horie, Katagiri, Sekiya and Muneta, 2017). These results are useful for the development of implant designs and prediction of the contact stress on the tibial post in PS TKA (Watanabe, Koga, Horie, Katagiri, Sekiya and Muneta, 2017). Godest et al. described an explicit finite element approach to simulate both the kinematics and the internal stresses within a single analysis (Godest, Beaugonin, Haug, Taylor and Gregson, 2002). A simulation of TKA subjected to a single gait cycle within a knee wear simulator was performed and the results were compared with experimental data. They showed that an explicit finite element approach is capable of predicting the kinematics and the stresses within a single analysis at relatively low computational cost. This type of dynamic explicit FE analysis has been under development (Fitzpatrick, Baldwin, Ali, Laz and Rullkoetter, 2011a; Fitzpatrick, Baldwin and Rullkoetter, 2010; Godest, Beaugonin, Haug, Taylor and Gregson, 2002; Halloran, Petrella and Rullkoetter, 2005; Knight, Pal, Coleman, Bronson, Haider, Levine, Taylor and Rullkoetter, 2007). Ardestani et al. evaluated the underlying relationships between implant geometry as input and its performance metrics as output using dynamic simulation (Ardestani et al., 2015a). They highlighted how changes in the conformity of the femoral and tibial can impact the performance metrics. In addition, they studied combined FE simulation and principal component analysis (PCA) to evaluate the reliability and sensitivity of two PS designs versus two CR designs over a patient population (Ardestani et al., 2015b). Results showed that: (1) conformity directly affected the reliability of the knee implant over a patient population, such that lesser conformity designs had higher kinematic variability and were more influenced by AP force and IE torque; (2) contact reliability did not differ remarkably among different designs; and (3) the choice of CR or PS design affected the critical factors that influenced the reliability of each 2018k). that patient-specific UKA mechanics close to of the normal knee joint. The decreased contact stress on the opposite compartment the overall risk of progressive osteoarthritis (Kang, Son, Suh, Kwon, Kwon and Koh, 2018k). Studies on biomimetic TKA were also conducted using an MBD model (Varadarajan et al., 2015a; Varadarajan et al., 2015b; Zumbrunn et al., 2018; Zumbrunn et al., 2015). These studies demonstrated that the biomimetic-CR showed medial pivot motion, while other CR implants showed abnormal motion including lateral or no pivot, and paradoxical anterior sliding during deep knee bend and chair-sitting (Varadarajan, Zumbrunn, Rubash, Malchau, Li and Muratoglu, 2015a). In addition, restoring native knee geometry ACL preservation kinematic improvements over contemporary ACL-preserving and ACL-sacrificing implants Rubash, Malchau, Li and Muratoglu, In many that prosthetic design with native knee anatomy is required to preserve native knee kinematics Son, Suh, Kwon, Kwon Koh, 2018k; Koh, Lee, Chung and Kang, 2019a; Koh, Nam and Kang, 2018a; Koh, Son, Kwon, Kwon Kang, 2018b; Koh, Son, Kwon, Kwon and Kang, 2018c; Rubash, Malchau, Li Muratoglu, 2015a; Zumbrunn, Malchau, Muratoglu Muratoglu