Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12479343

Why a taper?

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas H Mallory, Adolph V Lombardi, Joseph R Leith, Hiroshi Fujita, Jodi F Hartman, Susan G Capps, Cheryl A Kefauver, Joanne B Adams, G Christian Vorys. 2002. Why a taper?. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200200002-00010

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Finite element analysis of impact loads on the femur.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the stress distribution and fracture mechanism of proximal femur under impact loads. METHODS: The image data of one male's femur were collected by the Lightspeed multi-lay spiral computed tomography. A 3D finite element model of the femur was established by employing the finite element software ANSYS, which mainly concentrated on the effects of the directions of the impact loads arising from intense movements and the parenchyma on the hip joint as well as those of the femur material properties on the distribution of the Mises equivalent stress in the femur after impact. RESULTS: The numerical results about the effects of the angle sigma of the impact loads to the anterior direction and the angle gamma of the impact loads to the femur shaft on the bone fracture were given. The angle sigma had larger effect on the stress distribution than the angle gamma, which mainly represented the fracture of the upper femur including the femoral neck fracture when the posterolateral femur was impacted. This result was consistent with the clinical one. The parenchyma on the hip joint has relatively large relaxation effect on the impact loads. CONCLUSIONS: A 3D finite element analysis model of the femoral hip joint under dynamic loads is successfully established by using the impact dynamic theory.

Femur↗

A convex lateral tibial plateau for knee replacement.

Unicompartmental knee replacements have not performed as well in the lateral compartment as in the medial. This may be because the tibial components have flat or slightly concave surfaces which match the medial plateau but not the convex lateral plateau. The aim of this study was to find the optimal radius for a convex lateral tibial component. Twelve normal lateral tibial plateau were retrieved at knee replacement, and their surface contour in their mid sagittal plane was determined. The optimal circle was fitted and its radius measured. A series of different shaped tibial components were superimposed. From published information about the position of the femoral condyle relative to the tibia in different degrees of flexion, the flexion gap at these angles was determined. The average radius of the lateral tibial plateau was 40 mm. However, as the surface was polyradial it was not clear if this average radius would be optimal. In full flexion, a flat tibial plateau distracted the knee by 8 mm (p<0.001). A 75 mm radius spherical tibial plateau did not alter the knee kinematics significantly and gave rise to a change in joint distraction of 1.5 mm. Spherical tibial plateau of 50 mm and 25 mm radii significantly altered knee kinematics (p<0.001) and resulted in changes in distraction of 3 mm and 4 mm respectively. The optimal shape for a unicompartmental lateral tibial plateau is likely to be a spherical dome with radius of about 75 mm. The incorporation of this shape in the lateral side of a total knee replacement might improve its flexion.

Femur↗

Common misconceptions of normal hip joint relations on pelvic radiographs.

This study defines normal bilateral variations in offset and hip center location on pelvic radiographs. The relationship of the femoral head center to the tip of the greater trochanter and that of offset to medullary canal diameter are also defined. Measurements of the offset, hip center location, height of the tip of the greater trochanter from the femoral head center, and medullary canal diameter were carried out on 100 normal pelvic radiographs. The offset of one hip was found to predict that of the contralateral hip to within 4.62 mm with 95% confidence. Their hip center locations differed by 6.3 mm. The tip of the greater trochanter was, on average, 8 mm higher than the femoral head center. Although offset generally increased with an increase in medullary canal diameter, frequent discrepancies occurred in their relationship.

Femur↗