The Influence of Material and Design on Total Knee Replacement Wear

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

It is difficult for surgeons to make the decision on which design or material to use given the different options available. Marketing claims and direct-to-consumer advertising certainly complicate this further. One company may claim a higher percentage of wear reduction with their bearing surfaces compared with those of another manufacturer. If the percentage of wear reduction is lower, it is unclear as to whether this creates a more effective technology for reducing wear in the clinical situation. The relative contribution and relationship of design and materials to wear performance must be considered before making that important judgment. To examine the overall influence of implant design on wear reduction, a knee simulator study was undertaken. This simulator study compared the Oxinium Genesis II system with the Triathlon Conventional and Triathlon X3 knee systems under physiologic stair-climb loading and motion profiles. This allows a similar comparison of material effect within one design but also a global comparison across designs. Test results show the Triathlon Conventional and Triathlon X3 knee systems have superior wear resistance compared with that of the Genesis II Oxinium system under stair-climbing simulation. This finding indicates that implant design plays a more significant role in knee wear reduction than material. Although material technology may improve a given knee system's ability to wear, design geometry has a first-order effect and should be addressed before materials. This study represents an effort to differentiate design effect from two different approaches to material enhancement. The results of this study support the predominance of design in knee replacement wear performance. Ultimately, only clinical evidence such as published studies or outcomes reported in the available joint registries will establish whether any material or design can achieve a 30-year outcome.

REFERENCES

• 1 Kurtz S M, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic K J. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: National projections from 2010 to 2030.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;  467 2606-2612
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Smith & Nephew. Rediscover your go. 2011 .Available at: http://www.rediscoveryourgo.com/Product.aspx?Product=VERILAST Accessed January 24, 2011
• 3 Smith & Nephew .White Paper using DOF, 30 Year Wear Performance of Legion Primary Knees with Verilast Technology. Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN
  Google Scholar
• 4 Laurent M P, Yao J Q, Bhambri S et al.. High cycle wear of highly crosslinked UHMWPE tibial articular surfaces evaluated in a knee wear simulator. 27th Annual Meeting Transactions, Society for Biomaterials. 2002: 712
  Google Scholar
• 5 Biomet White Paper .FDA Cleared Claim for E1 Knee Bearings – 510(k) K080528. 2010 Available at: http://www.fda.gov
• 6 Tsukamoto R, Williams P A, Shoji H et al.. Wear of sequentially enhanced 9-Mrad polyethylene in 10 million cycle knee simulation study.  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;  86 (1) 119-124
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Spector B M, Ries M D, Bourne R B, Sauer W S, Long M, Hunter G. Wear performance of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene on oxidized zirconium total knee femoral components.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;  83 (Suppl 2 Pt 2) 80-86
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Zeng H, Yau S S, Essner A, Manley M, Dumbleton J. Wear, oxidation and mechanical properties of a sequentially irradiated and annealed UHMWPE in total joint replacement.  J Phys D: Appl Phys. 2006;  39 3213-3219
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Riener R, Rabuffetti M, Frigo C. Stair ascent and descent at different inclinations.  Gait Posture. 2002;  15 32-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Morrison J B. Function of the knee joint in various activities.  Biomed Eng. 1969;  4 573-580
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Essner A, Zeng H, Yau S S et al.. Stair climbing knee wear simulation: Sequentially crosslinked and annealed UHMWPE.  30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Bio-materials, Mt. Laurel, NJ. Soc Biomater. 2005;  196
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wang A, Essner A, Schmidig G. The effects of lubricant composition on in vitro wear testing of polymeric acetabular components.  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004;  68 45-52
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 ASTM F2025 - Standard Practice for Gravimetric Measurement of Polymeric Components for Wear Assessment. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society of Testing of Materials International 2006;
  Google Scholar
• 14 Wang A, Essner A, Polineni V K, Stark C, Dumbleton J H. Lubrication and wear of UHMWPE in total joint replacements. In: Hutchings I M, ed. New Directions in Tribology. London, UK: Institute of Mechanical Engineers; 1997: 443-457
  Google Scholar
• 15 Bourne R B, Barrack R, Rorabeck C H, Salehi A, Good V. Arthroplasty options for the young patient: Oxinium on cross-linked polyethylene.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;  (441) 159-167
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Wang A, Yau S S, Essner A, Herrera L, Manley M, Dumbleton J. A highly crosslinked UHMWPE for CR and PS total knee arthroplasties.  J Arthroplasty. 2008;  23 559-566
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Korduba L, Loving L, Essner A, Kester M. Wear comparison of fixed vs. mobile bearing total and unicompartmental knee replacements [paper no. 238]. Paper presented at: 7th Combined Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Societies; October 2010; Takaragaike, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan
  Google Scholar
• 18 Johnson T S, Laurent M P, Yao J Q, Blanchard C R. Comparison of wear of mobile & fixed bearing knees tested in a knee simulator.  Wear. 2003;  255 (7–12) 1107-1112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Aaron EssnerM.S. 

Director – Biomechanics & Tribology, Stryker Orthopaedics

325 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ 07430

Email: Aaron.Essner@stryker.com