New Test Method for Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Orthopaedic Total Knee Contact Characterization
1. Scope
This test method establishes requirements and considerations for the development of finite element models to be used in the evaluation of metallic knee femoral components and polyethylene tibial insert components for the purpose of prediction of tibiofemoral contact parameters (contact area and contact pressure) generated when the two components come into contact. This procedure can be used to perform tibiofemoral contact characterization. It can also be used to identify the worst-case femoral component and tibial insert size combination within a product family and/or worst-case product combination between product families with respect to tibiofemoral contact parameters. The question of interest can be stated as "Does the contact parameters for a given femoral component and tibial insert combination meet the design requirements?" Recommended procedures for performing the simulation are provided as guidelines. A comparator data set is presented with contact parameter (contact area and contact pressure) measurements from a benchtop test. Credibility factors for validation model and validation assessment categories (per ASME VV40-2018) are presented in the appendix as a guide. Finally, the recommended content of an engineering report covering the mechanical simulation is presented.
Keywords
FEA; Finite Element Analysis; Simulation
Rationale
Contact Area and Contact Pressure testing has been recommended in FDA Guidance and ASTM F2083 Total Knee specification. This testing is recommended to understand potential for wear behavior in a total knee implant system and helps support worst case analysis for wear testing. Little guidance on the method is given in the standards currently, and only the angles of flexion are specifically recommended. These often do not match reported literature. Literature references are provided but no standard test method exists as a standard. Therefore published literature explores many methods (film vs digital film vs ultrasound etc.) and loading conditions and size combinations of implants, mostly undisclosed, and this offers a poor comparator between devices. Loading conditions, angles, and methods must be consistent to make a meaningful comparison. Additionally, the use of validated finite element models to characterize this contact can significantly streamline the testing by identifying worst-case combinations in a more comprehensive manner than a traditional engineering rationale without compromising the integrity of results and conclusions.