Evaluating the impact of bone pins and springs on the mechanical performance of the KneeReviver device

This data collection contains all data used in the study: Evaluating the impact of bone pins and springs on the mechanical performance of the KneeReviver device. Introduction: Tibiofemoral osteoarthritis significantly affects quality of life, particularly in
active patients aged 45 to 65. Joint-preserving treatments like knee joint distraction are
preferred over total knee arthroplasty due to high costs and lower success rates of revisions of
total knee arthroplasties. A previous experimental study indicated that while the KneeReviver
(KR) device effectively relieves pressure by creating a gap between the femur and tibia, the
joint gap was not fully maintained at physiological loads, highlighting the need for more insight
into which device specifications affect joint gap narrowing. This study investigates the
contribution of bone pins and internal springs of the KR device to its mechanical performance
within one patient.
Methods: Finite Element models were developed to assess three device specifications: bone pin
length, bone pin diameter, and active or blocked internal device springs. The finite element
models were first validated against experimental data. The impact of the device specifics on
contact parameters, including peak pressure, mean pressure, contact area, and total load on
cartilage, as well as joint gap dynamics during opening and closing, was analyzed.
Results: It was found that smaller bone pin diameters resulted in higher contact parameters,
characterized by increased contact pressures and larger contact areas. Models with active
springs demonstrated higher contact parameters compared to those with blocked springs, while
longer bone pins were also associated with increased contact parameters. Furthermore, smaller
diameters, active springs, and longer pins led to smaller joint gap creation during distraction.
However, these specifications also resulted in more joint gap narrowing at lower loads during
axial loading, suggesting a decrease in the total stiffness of the device.
The findings underscore the critical roles of bone pins and internal springs in optimizing the
KR device's mechanical function. Understanding how these parameters contribute to the
mechanical working is vital for enhancing surgical placement, exploring patient-specific device
options, and device design, improving distraction treatment outcomes. Future research should
define acceptable load limits to determine whether the device must bear the full load or if some
load through the tibiofemoral joint is acceptable.