Due to growing number of replacement and revision surgeries, total knee replacement (TKR) has become one of the most critical biomedical applications. For multiple and conflicting criteria, appropriate material selection for femoral component of TKR becomes an important strategic decision making problem.In this paper, a simple, systematic and logical scientific approach is structured to evaluate appropriate material for femoral component of TKR through integrating Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) with the Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE). The proposed decision-making approach takes advantage of the synergy between these two well-known multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in which their strong and weak points are detected and a ranking is provided with sensitivity analysis which facilitates the final selection for the decision maker.
BahraminasabM., SahariB.B., EdwardsK.L., FarahmandF., HongT.S. and NaghibiH., Material tailoring of the femoral component in a total knee replacement to reduce the problem of aseptic loosening, Mater Des52 (2013), 441–451.
2.
EnabT.A. and BondokN.E., Material selection in the design of the tibia tray component of cemented artificial knee using finite element method, Mater Des44 (2013), 454–460.
3.
BahraminasabM. and JahanA., Material selection forfemoral component of total knee replacement using comprehensive VIKOR, Mater Des32 (2011), 4471–4477.
4.
BahraminasabM., SahariB.B., EdwardsK.L., FarahmandF., HongT.S., ArumugamM. and JahanA., Multi-objective design optimization of functionally graded material for the femoral component of a total knee replacement, Mater Des53 (2014), 159–173.
5.
EdwardsK.L., Towards an improved development process for new hip prostheses, Mater Des29(2) (2008), 558–561.
6.
FaragM.M., Materials selection for engineering design, New York: Prentice-Hall; 1997.
7.
GeethaM., SinghA.K., AsokamaniR. and GogiaA.K., Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants – a review, Prog Mater Sci54(3) (2009), 397–425.
8.
EL-SheikhH.F., MacdonaldB.J. and HashmiM.S.J., Material selection in the design of the femoral component of cemented total hip replacement, J Mater Process Technol122 (2002), 309–317.
9.
OkazakiY. and GotohE., Comparison of metal release from various metallic biomaterials in vitro, Biomaterials26(1) (2005), 11–21.
10.
NavarroM., MichiardiA., CastañoO. and PlanellJ.A., Biomaterials in orthopaedics, J Roy Soc Interf5(27) (2008), 1137–1158.
11.
PrendergastP.J., MonaghanJ. and TaylorD., Materials selection in the artificial hip joint using finite element stress analysis, Clin Mater4 (1989), 361–376.
12.
FaganM.J. and LeeA.J.C., Material selection in the design of the femoral component of cemented total hip replacements, Clin Mater1 (1986), 151–167.
13.
QuigleyF.P., BuggyM. and BirkinshawC., Selection of elastomeric materials for compliant-layered total hip arthroplasty, Proc Inst Mech Eng H: J Eng Med216(1) (2002), 77–83.
14.
CicekK. and CelikM., Multiple attribute decision-making solution to material selection problem based on modified fuzzy axiomatic design-model selection interface algorithm, Mater Des31 (2010), 2129–2133.
15.
MajumdarA., Selection of raw materials in textile spinning industry using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach, Fibers and Polymers11 (2010), 121–127.
16.
KabirG., Multiple criteria inventory classification under fuzzy environment, International Journal of Fuzzy System Applications2(4) (2012), 76–92.
17.
SenC.G. and ÇinarG., Evaluation and pre-allocation of operators with multiple skills: A combined fuzzy AHP and max–min approach, Expert Systems with Applications37(3) (2010), 2043–2053.
18.
KabirG. and HasinM.A.A., Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for multicriteria inventory classification, International Journal of Fuzzy Logic Systems1(1) (2011), 1–16.
19.
KahramanC., KayaI. and CebiS., A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Energy34(10) (2009), 1603–1616.
20.
TianX., LiuX. and WangL., An improved PROMETHEE II method based on Axiomatic Fuzzy Sets, Neural Computing and Applications25(7-8) (2014), 1675–1683.
21.
WangY.M., LuoY. and HuaZ., On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research186(2) (2007), 735–747.
22.
MacharisC., SpringaelJ., BruckerK.D. and VerbekeA., PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis, Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP, European Journal of Operational Research153(2) (2004), 307–317.
23.
WangJ.J. and YangD.L., Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing, Computers & Operations Research34 (2007), 3691–3700.
24.
HervaM. and RocaE., Ranking municipal solid waste treatment alternatives based on ecological footprint and multi-criteria analysis, Ecological Indicators25 (2013), 77–84.
25.
BransJ.P. and MareschalB., PROMETHEE methods, In FigueiraJ., GrecoS., & EhrgottM. (Eds.), Multiple criteria analysis - state of the art surveys, International Series in Operations Research and Management Sciences78 (2005), 163–195.
26.
KabirG., SadiqR. and TesfamariamS., A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering10(9) (2014), 1176–1210.
27.
KabirG. and SumiR.S., Power substation location selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and PROMETHEE: A case study from Bangladesh, Energy72 (2014), 717–730.
28.
TurcksinL., BernardiniaA. and MacharisaC., A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences20 (2011), 954–965.
29.
ChangC.W., WuC.R. and ChenH.C., Using expert technology to select unstable slicing machine to control wafer slicing quality via fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications34(3) (2008), 2210–2220.
30.
MurryJ.W. and HammonsJ.O., Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research, Review of Higher Education18(4) (1995), 423–436.
31.
KutluA.C. and EkmekçiogluM., Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications39(1) (2012), 61–67.
32.
ChangD.Y., Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research95(3) (1996), 649–655.
33.
NesticS., DjordjevicA., PuskaricH., DjordjevicM.Z., TadicD. and StefanovicM., The evaluation and improvement of process quality by using the fuzzy sets theory and genetic algorithm approach, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems29(5) (2015), 2017–2028.
34.
KabirG. and HasinM.A.A., Framework for benchmarking on-line retailing performance using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS method, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations3(4) (2012), 561–576.
35.
LiouT.S. and WangM.J., Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value, Fuzzy Sets and Systems50(3) (1992), 247–255.
36.
BransJ.P., Lingenierie de la decision. Elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision. Methode PROMETHEE. NadeauR., and LandryM., edi., Laide a la Decision: Nature, Instruments eterspectives Davenir. Presses de Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada, 1982, pp. 183–214.
37.
BransJ.P. and VinckeP., A preference ranking organization method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making), Management Science31(6) (1985), 647–656.
GrujicicM., ArakereG., XieX., LaBergeM., GrujicicA., WagnerD.W., et al., Design-optimization and material for a femoralfracture fixation-plate implant, Mater Des31(7) (2010), 3463–3473.
40.
FindikF., Overview to materials selection, Muhendis ve Makina50(591) (2009), 25–31.
ZhuS.L., YangX.J., ChenM.F., LiC.Y. and CuiZ.D., Effect of porous NiTi alloy on bone formation: A comparative investigation with bulk NiTi alloy for 15 weeks, Mater Sci Eng C28(8) (2008), 1271–1275.
43.
MachadoL.G. and SaviM.A., Medical applications of shape memory alloys, Br J Med Biol Res36 (2003), 683–691.
44.
BalakrishnanN., UveliusB., ZaszczurynskiP., LinD.L. and DamaserM.S., Biocompatibility of nitinol and stainless steel in the bladder: An experimental study, J Urol173(2) (2005), 647–650.
45.
KapanenA., RyhänenJ., DanilovA. and TuukkanenJ., Effect of nickel–titanium shape memory metal alloy on bone formation, Biomaterials22(18) (2001), 2475–2480.
46.
EntchevP.B. and LagoudasD.C., Modeling of transformation-induced plasticity and its effect on the behavior of porous shape memory alloys, Part II: Porous SMA response, Mech Mater36(9) (2004), 893–913.
47.
SadrnezhaadS.K. and HosseiniS.A., Fabrication of porous NiTi-shape memory alloy objects by partially hydrided titanium powder for biomedical applications, Mater Des30(10) (2009), 4483–4487.
