{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025590551181102362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011811023622047244, 'mean_word_length': 5.354166666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In-vivo kinematics of knee prostheses patients during level walking compared with the ISO force-controlled simulator standard

Abstract Differences between wear-scar features of simulator-tested and retrieved tibial total knee replacement (TKR) liners have been reported. This disagreement may result from differences between in-vivo kinematic profiles and those defined by the standard. The purpose of this study was to determine the knee kinematics of a TKR subject group during level walking and to compare them with the motion profiles produced by a wear test conducted according to the force-controlled knee wear testing ISO 14243-1 standard. Ten patients with a posterior cruciate ligament-retaining TKR design were gait tested using the point cluster technique to obtain flexion—extension (FE) rotation, anterior—posterior (AP) translation, and internal—external (IE) rotation motions during a complete cycle of level walking. Motion data were directly compared with the output kinematics from the wear test. The subjects exhibited an FE rotation pattern similar to the output from ISO-14243-1; however, they had higher midstance knee flexion angles. For both AP translation and IE rotation, the standard profiles had significantly smaller total ranges of motion than seen in vivo, with noticeably different patterns of motions. For this particular implant design, significant differences were found in both the pattern and the magnitudes of in-vivo motion during level walking compared with the ISO-14243-1 standard.