Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:10572623rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704689lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0022742lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0040184lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0137914lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0231435lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0086272lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707689lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0600169lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:dateCreated2000-1-24lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:abstractTextCurrent designs of mobile bearing knees have different kinematics at the tibial counterface articulation; unidirectional represented by linear tracks and rotating platform designs, and multidirectional represented by reduced constraint designs with motion of the tibial surface in A-P and M-L directions simultaneously. One fifth scale experimental models of the tibial counterface articulation have been developed with mean contact stresses of 0.6 MPa. The unidirectional model had a linear reciprocating motion with a 10 mm stroke, the multidirectional model had a reciprocating motion with a 10 mm stroke and simultaneous rotation of +/- 7.5 degrees. Six specimens of GUR415 polyethylene were tested for each model, sliding on polished cobalt chrome counterfaces with Ra < 0.01 micron in 25% bovine serum lubricant. The mean +/- STERR wear rates were: unidirectional 0.045 +/- 0.015 mm3/million cycles and multidirectional 0.44 +/- 0.15 mm3/million cycles. Applying the scaling factor of 5, the predicted wear rates in actual knee prostheses were: unidirectional 0.23 mm3/million cycles and multidirectional 2.2 mm3/million cycles. The order of magnitude increase in wear rate was statistically significant (p = 0.05).lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:issn0959-2989lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FisherJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:StoneM HMHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BartonD CDClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AugerD DDDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:JonesV CVClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorpubmed-author:FitzpatrickD...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:volume9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:pagination189-96lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10572623...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:year1999lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:articleTitleAn experimental model of tibial counterface polyethylene wear in mobile bearing knees: the influence of design and kinematics.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:affiliationMedical and Biological Engineering Group, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, UK.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10572623pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:10572623lld:pubmed