Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Improving Quality of Design in Femoral Component of Knee Prostheses: Influence of Interface Geometry and Material
Table 9
Performance of FGM designs in different criteria and ranking orders scenarios by TOPSIS method.
Objectives
Max
Min
Min
Min
Min
Min
Relative closeness to the ideal solution
Ranking
Relative weights of design criteria
0.19
0.15
0.19
0.11
0.14
0.23
A
B
C
D
E
F
Design 1
3.100
2.655
30.61
20.16
900.79
14.4
0.6029
4
Design 2
3.818
3.449
39.58
23.54
918.17
14.3
0.5540
8
Design 3
1.707
2.208
17.93
14.09
804.59
13.1
0.6566
3
Design 4
1.925
2.245
19.16
14.34
925.8
12.2
0.6011
5
Design 5
3.150
2.668
31.24
21.26
901.99
29.0
0.4385
14
Design 6
4.466
1.866
40.36
24.17
874.13
13.8
0.6730
1
Design 7
1.741
1.249
18.03
14.71
849.11
14.7
0.6581
2
Design 8
1.961
1.349
19.25
14.97
867.89
33
0.4678
11
Design 9
1.327
2.456
79.44
12.76
934.89
12.8
0.4582
12
Design 10
1.480
1.814
87.88
15.83
813.68
18.6
0.4582
13
Design 11
0.932
1.017
57.53
7.55
779.58
22.2
0.5300
9
Design 12
0.941
1.326
57.93
7.86
883.21
12.0
0.5603
6
Design 13
1.353
2.460
83.24
12.88
885.27
17.5
0.4180
15
Design 14
1.462
1.835
90.14
15.81
892.91
18.4
0.4120
16
Design 15
0.940
1.206
58.59
7.59
796.96
22.6
0.5103
10
Design 16
0.934
1.328
58.56
7.88
866.49
13.6
0.5552
7
A: minimum of stress mean in different regions explained in Figure 9 (MPa). B: maximum of stress STDV in different regions (MPa). C: maximum contact slip at femoral component/bone interface (μm). D: maximum peg stress (MPa). E: area of cross section (mm2). F: maximum stress at corner points of inner contour (MPa).
