BiegerR.IgnatiusA.DeckingR.ClaesL.ReichelH. and DrselenL., Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design, Clinical Biomechanics27(2) (2012), 158–164. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.08.004.
2.
BridgensJ.DaviesS.TilleyL.NormanP. and StockleyI., Orthopaedic bone cement: Do we know what we are using? Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – British Volume90-(5) (2008), 643–647. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B5.19803.
3.
BrihaultJ.NavacchiaA.PianigianiS.LabeyL.De CorteR.PascaleV. and InnocentiB., All-polyethylene tibial components generate higher stress and micromotions than metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy24(8) (2016), 2550–2559. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3630-8.
4.
CompletoA.SimesJ.A.FonsecaF. and OliveiraM., The influence of different tibial stem designs in load sharing and stability at the cement-bone interface in revision TKA, Knee15(3) (2008), 227–232. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2008.01.008.
5.
ConliskN.HowieC.R. and PankajP., Computational modelling of motion at the bone-implant interface after total knee arthroplasty: The role of implant design and surgical fit, Knee24(5) (2017), 994–1005. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2017.07.003.
6.
DoranJ.YuS.SmithD. and IorioR., The role of all-polyethylene tibial components in modern TKA, J Knee Surg28(5) (2015), 382–389. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1551832.
7.
GioeT.J. and BowmanK.R., A randomized comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (380) (2000), 108–115.
8.
GioeTerenceJ.SinnerP.MehleS.MaW. and KilleenK.K., Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research464 (2007), 88–92. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31812f7879.
9.
HealyW.L.IorioR.KoJ.ApplebyD. and LemosD.W., Impact of cost reduction programs on short-term patient outcome and hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume84(3) (2002), 348–353.
10.
InnocentiB.PianigianiS.LabeyL.VictorJ. and BellemansJ., Contact forces in several TKA designs during squatting: A numerical sensitivity analysis, Journal of Biomechanics44(8) (2011), 1573–1581. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.02.081.
11.
InnocentiM.CarulliC.MatassiF.CarossinoA.M.BrandiM.L. and CivininiR., Total knee arthroplasty in patients with hypersensitivity to metals, International Orthopaedics38(2) (2014), 329–333. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2229-2.
12.
JaberS.A.TaddeiP.TozziS.SudaneseA. and AffatatoS., In vitro effects on mobile polyethylene insert under highly demanding daily activities: stair climbing, International Orthopaedics39(7) (2015), 1433–1440. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2622-5.
13.
JayabalanP.FurmanB.D.CottrellJ.M. and WrightT.M., Backside wear in modern total knee designs, HSS Journal: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery3(1) (2007), 30–34. doi: 10.1007/s11420-006-9033-0.
14.
KohI.J.SuhlK.H.KimM.W.KimM.S.ChoiK.Y. and InY., Use of all-polyethylene tibial components in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty increases the risk of early failure, The Journal of Knee Surgery1(212) (2017). doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1597979.
Orthoknow. 2013. Strategic insights into the orthopaedic industry, Orthoknow, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.valuevan-tagepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/orthoknow1304-Pricing-Pressure_Provines-April-2013.pdf.
17.
Prez-BlancaA.PradoM.EzquerroF.MontazE. and EspejoA., Addition of a short central extension to surface cemented tibial trays in primary TKA: An in vitro study of the effect on initial fixation stability and its relationship to supporting bone density, Clinical Biomechanics23(4) (2008), 483–492. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.11.012.
18.
ParksN.L.EnghG.A.TopoleskiL.D. and EmperadoJ., The coventry award. modular tibial insert micromotion. A concern with contemporary knee implants, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (356) (1998), 10–15.
19.
RakotomananaR.L.LeyvrazP.F., A. CurnierHeegaardJ.H. and RubinP.J., A finite element model for evaluation of tibial prosthesis-bone interface in total knee replacement, Journal of Biomechanics25(12) (1992), 1413–1424. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(92)90055-6.
20.
RodriguezJ.A.BaezN.RasquinhaV. and RanawatC.S., Metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in total knee replacement, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (392) (2001), 174–183.
21.
SharkeyP.F.LichsteinP.M.ShenC.TokarskiA.T. and ParviziJ., Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today-has anything changed after 10 years? Journal of Arthroplasty29(9) (2013), 1774–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024.
22.
ShenY.LiX.FuX. and WangW., A 3D finite element model to investigate prosthetic interface stresses of different posterior tibial slope, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy23(11) (2015), 3330–3336. doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3144-9.
23.
SmallS.R.RoggeR.D.MalinzakR.A.ReyesE.M.CookP.L.FarleyK.A. and RitterM.A., Micromotion at the tibial plateau in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: Fixed versus rotating platform designs, Bone and Joint Research5(4) (2016), 122–129. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000481.
24.
VanlommelJ.LuyckxJ.P.LabeyL.InnocentiB.De CorteR. and BellemansJ., Cementing the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: Which technique is the best? The Journal of Arthroplasty26(3) (2011), 492–496. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.107.
25.
ZhangQ.H.CosseyA. and TongJ., Stress shielding in periprosthetic bone following a total knee replacement: Effects of implant material, design and alignment, Medical Engineering and Physics38(12) (2016), 1481–1488. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2016.09.018.