EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 38 / No 1 (Janvier 2022) Med Sci (Paris), 38 1 (2022) 38-44 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 38, Number 1, Janvier 2022
Page(s) 38 - 44
Section M/S Revues
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2021243
Published online 21 January 2022
  1. Favre P, Maquer G, Henderson A, et al. In Silico Clinical Trials in the Orthopedic Device Industry : From Fantasy to Reality? Ann Biomed Eng 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-021-02787-y. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Wade SW, Strader C, Fitzpatrick LA, et al. Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis : examples from industrialized countries. Arch Osteoporos 2014; 9 : 182. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ben-Shlomo Y, Blom A, Boulton C, et al. The National Joint Registry 17th Annual Report 2020. London 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Erens GA, Thornhill TS, Katz JN. Total hip arthroplasty. UpToDate 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fennema P, Achakri H. Getting your devices ready for MDR compliance–a clinical approach and orthopaedic device manufacturers’perspective. AboutOpen 2019 ; 5 : 70–75. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Regulation. (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. [Google Scholar]
  7. Oulharj S, Pauchot J, Tropet Y. PIP breast implant removal : a study of 828 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 : 302–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Clough RW. The finite element method after twenty-five years : A personal view. Computers & Structures 1980 ; 12 : 361–370. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Ostergaard MG, Ibbotson AR, Le Roux O, Prior AM. Virtual testing of aircraft structures. CEAS Aeronautical Journal 2011 ; 1 : 83–103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Huizinga F, Van Ostaijen RAA, Van Oosten Slingeland A. A practical approach to virtual testing in automotive engineering. J Eng Design 2002; 13 : 33–47. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Huiskes R, Chao EY. A survey of finite element analysis in orthopedic biomechanics : the first decade. J Biomech 1983 ; 16 : 385–409. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. ASTM-F2996-20. Standard Practice for Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Non-Modular Metallic Orthopaedic Hip Femoral Stems. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. ASTM-F3334-19. Standard Practice for Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Metallic Orthopaedic Total Knee Tibial Components. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Viceconti M, Affatato S, Baleani M, et al. Pre-clinical validation of joint prostheses : a systematic approach. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2009 ; 2 : 120–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bieger R, Ignatius A, Decking R, et al. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design. Clin Biomech 2012 ; 27 : 158–164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shu L, Yamamoto K, Yao J, et al. A subject-specific finite element musculoskeletal framework for mechanics analysis of a total knee replacement. J Biomech 2018 ; 77 : 146–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Damm P, Graichen F, Rohlmann A, et al. Total hip joint prosthesis for in vivo measurement of forces and moments. Med Eng Phys 2010 ; 32 : 95–100. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Favre P, Henderson AD. Prediction of stemless humeral implant micromotion during upper limb activities. Clin Biomech 2016 ; 36 : 46–51. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Heimann T, Meinzer HP. Statistical shape models for 3D medical image segmentation : a review. Med Image Anal 2009 ; 13 : 543–563. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Al-Dirini RMA, Martelli S, O’Rourke D, et al. Virtual trial to evaluate the robustness of cementless femoral stems to patient and surgical variation. J Biomech 2019 ; 82 : 346–356. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Cook DD, Robertson DJ. The generic modeling fallacy : Average biomechanical models often produce non-average results!. J Biomech 2016 ; 49 : 3609–3615. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Martelli S, Taddei F, Cristofolini L, et al. A new hip epiphyseal prosthesis : design revision driven by a validated numerical procedure. Med Eng Phys 2011 ; 33 : 1203–1211. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty : 2020 Annual Report, Adelaide; AOA, 2020 : 1–474. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Langohr GDG, Reeves J, Roche CP, et al. The effect of short-stem humeral component sizing on humeral bone stress. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29 : 761–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Favre P, Moor B, Snedeker JG, Gerber C. Influence of component positioning on impingement in conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 2008 ; 23 : 175–183. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. Viceconti M, Pappalardo F, Rodriguez B, et al. In silico trials : Verification, validation and uncertainty quantification of predictive models used in the regulatory evaluation of biomedical products. Methods 2021; 185 : 120–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. ASME-V&V40. Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Viceconti M, Juarez MA, Curreli C, et al. Credibility of In Silico Trial Technologies-A Theoretical Framing. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2020; 24 : 4–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Faris O, Shuren J. An FDA Viewpoint on Unique Considerations for Medical-Device Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med 2017 ; 376 : 1350–1357. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. FDA. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hailer NP. Orthopedic registry research - limitations and future perspectives. Acta Orthop 2015 ; 86 : 1–2. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Taylor M, Prendergast PJ. Four decades of finite element analysis of orthopaedic devices : where are we now and what are the opportunities?. J Biomech 2015 ; 48 : 767–778. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Malak TT, Broomfield JA, Palmer AJ, et al. Surrogate markers of long-term outcome in primary total hip arthroplasty : A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016 ; 5 : 206–214. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Voigt I, Inojosa H, Dillenseger A, et al. Digital Twins for Multiple Sclerosis. Front Immunol 2021; 12 : 669811. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.