Advertisement

Polyethylene Wear

  • James V. Bono
  • George Faithfull

Abstract

Ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) possesses a unique blend of toughness, wear resistance, and biocompatibility.1,2 It has been the articular-bearing surface of choice against metal or ceramic since 1962.3 To date, it is still the best polymer available for joint implant use.4 However, with respect to long-term function and durability, just like the cartilage it replaces, its resistance to wear can be limited by the effects of aging and degradation. Failed total hip arthroplasties can occur as the result of infection, instability, component fracture, implant loosening, and prostheses malalignment. Polyethylene wear has become the limiting factor to long device lifetime in total hip arthroplasty, and it is becoming an increasing concern. The average long-term wear rate of Charnley acetabular cups, measured radi-ographically, has been reported to be 0.07 to 0.15 mm/year.5–12 Charnley and Halley13 described the average wear rate for a 22-mm stainless steel head against an all-polyethylene acetabular component.13

Keywords

Total Knee Replacement Acetabular Component Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Polyethylene Wear Polyethylene Liner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurth M, Eyerer P, Ascherl R, Dittel K, Holz U. An evaluation of retrieved UHMWPE hip joint cups. J Biomat Applic. 1988;3:33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roe RJ, Grood ES, Shastri R, Gosselin CA, Noyes FR. Effect of radiation sterilization and aging on UHMWPE. J Biomed Mater Res. 1981;15:209–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Livermore JT. Polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty. 1993;4:136–142.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke IC. Role of ceramic implants. Clin Orthop. 1992; 282:19–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartel DL, Wright TM, Edwards D. The effect of metal backing on stresses in polyethylene acetabular components. In: The Hip: Proceedings of the 18th Open Scientific Meeting of the Hip Society. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby, Inc; 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cupic Z. Long term follow-up of Charnley arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop. 1979;141:28–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffith MJ, Seidenstein MK, Williams D, Charnley J. Socket wear in Charnley low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop. 1978;137:37–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCoy TM, Salvati EA, Ranawat CS, Wilson PD Jr. A fifteen year follow-up study of one hundred Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988;19: 467–476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rimnac CM, Wilson PD, Fuchs MD, Wright TM. Acetabular cup wear in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1988;19:631–636.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salvati EA, Wilson PD Jr, Jolley MN, Vakili F, Aglietti P, Brown GC. A ten year follow-up study of our first one hundred consecutive Charnley total hip replacements.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:753–767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wroblewski BM. Direction and rate of socket wear in Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:757–761.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wroblewski BM. Fifteen to twenty-one-year results of the Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1986;211: 30–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charnley J, Halley DK. Rate of wear on total hip replacements. Clin Orthop. 1975;112:170–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris WH. A new total hip implant. Clin Orthop. 1971;81: 105–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collier JP, Mayer MB, Jensen RE, Surprenant VA, Suprenant HP, McNamar JL, et al. Mechanisms of failure of modular prostheses. Clin Orthop. 1992;285:129–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wright TM, Bartel DL, Rimnac CM. Surface damage in polyethylene total joint components. American Academy of Ortho-paedic Surgeons Kappa Delta award paper, presented at Hospital for Special Surgery; 1989.Google Scholar
  17. Landy MM, Walker PS. Wear of UHMWPE components of 90 retrieved knee prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 1988; (suppl):S73–S85.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jasty M et al. Wear of PE cups in THR: analysis of 159 cups retrieved at revision surgery or autopsy. Trans Orthop Res Soc. 1993;18:291.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell, et al. Histological analysis of tissues suggests that “metallosis” may really be “plasticosis.”Trans Orthop Res Soc. 1992;17:393.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doom, et al. Characterization of metal wear particles from metal on metal total hip replacements. Trans Soc Biomater. 1997;10:192.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Malchau, Herberts. Prognosis of total hip replacement. Presented at scientific exhibit, 64th meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; February 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willert HG. Reactions of the articular capsule to wear products of artificial joint prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 1977;11:157–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bartel DL, Burstein AH, Toda MD, Edwards DL. The effect of conformity and plastic thickness on contact stresses in metal-backed plastic implants. J Biomech Eng. 1985;107: 193–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Waugh W. In: John Charnley: The Man and the Hip. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1990:120–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maloney WJ, Jasty MJ. Wear debris in THA. Semin Arthroplasty. 1993;4:125–135.Google Scholar
  26. Lustiger A. Tie Molecules in Polyethylene. Gas Research Institute; 1985. Report GRI-85/0129.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lupton JM, Regester JW. Physical properties of extended-chain high-density polyethylene.J Appl Poly Sei. 1974;18:2407.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eyerer P, et al. UHMWPE for replacement joints. Translated fromKunstoffe German Plastics. 1987;77:617–622.Google Scholar
  29. Alexander N, Hungerford DS, Jones LC, Mont MA. Correlation of acetabular failure to polyethylene manufacturing techniques in total hip arthroplasty. Presented at 62nd meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedics; February 1995; Paper 121.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lykins CL. A comparison of extruded and molded UHMWPE.Trans Soc Biomater. 1995;18:385.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sun DC, Stark C, Dumbleton J. The origin of the white band observed in direct compression molded UHMWPE inserts.Trans Soc Biomater. 1994;17:121.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sutula LC, Collier JP, Saum KA, Currier BH, Currier JH, Sanford WM, et al. Impact of gamma sterilization on clinical performance of polyethylene in the hip.Clin Orthop. 1995;319:28–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Li S. Radiation damage in polyethylene. Presented at Second Annual Midwest Conference on UHMWPE; October 1995; Warsaw, Ind.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gillis A, Furman B, Perone J, Lefebvre F, Reish T, Li S. Oxidation of in vivo vs. shelf life aged gamma sterilized total knee replacements. Trans Soc Biomater. 1997;20:73.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Streicher. The behavior of UHMW-PE when subjected to sterilization by ionizing radiation. In: Willert HG, Buchhorn G, Eyerer P, eds.UHMWPE as Biomaterial in Orthopedic Surgery. Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe & Huber; 1991:66–73.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McKellop HA, Shen FW, Yu YJ, Lu B, Salovey R, Campbell P. Effect of sterilization method and other modifications on the wear resistance of UHMWPE cups. Presented at Polyethylene Wear in Orthopaedics Implants Workshop, 23rd annual meeting of the Society for Biomaterials; 1997.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McKellop H, Shen F, Ota T, Lu B, Wiser H, Yu E. The effect of sterilization method, calcium stearate, and molecular weight on wear of UHMWPE acetabular cups. Trans Soc Biomater. 1997;20:43.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    McKellop H, Shen F, Ota T, Lu B, Wiser H, Yu E. Wear of UHMWPE acetabular cups after gamma sterilization in nitrogen, thermal stabilization, and artificial aging. Trans Soc Biomater. 1997;20:45.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Clarke IC, Good V, Williams P, Oparaugo P, Oonishi H, Fujisawa A. Simulator wear study of high-dose gamma-irradiated UHMWPE cups. Trans Soc for Biomater. 1997;20: 71.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Merrill EW, Jasty M, Harris WH. Electron beam cross-linking of UHMWPE at room temperature: a candidate bearing material for total joint arthroplasty. Trans Soc Biomater. 1997; 20:74.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oonishi H. The low wear of cross-linked polyethylene socket in total hip prostheses.Encyclopaedia of Biomaterials and Bioengineering. Part A, vol 2. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1995:1853.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramamurti BS, Bragdon CR, Harris WH. Loci of selected points on the femoral head during normal gait. Trans Soc Biomater. 1995;18:347.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang A, Sun DC, Stark C, Dumbleton J. Factors affecting wear screening. Presented at the American Society for Testing and Materials Workshop on Characterization and Performance of Articular Surfaces; May 1995; Denver, Colo.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang A, Essner A, Polineni VK, Sun DC, Stark C, Dumbleton J. Wear mechanisms and wear testing of ultrahigh molecular weight Polyethylene in total joint replacements. Presented at Polyethylene Wear in Orthopaedics Implants Workshop, 23rd annual meeting of the Society for Biomaterials; 1997.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amis AA, Seedhorn BB. Design factors for Polyethylene prosthesis components with particular reference to Sheehan knee implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983;65:367.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM. The effect of confor-mity, thickness and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1041–1051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cameron HU, Hunter GA. Failure in total knee arthro-plasty: mechanisms, revisions, and results. Clin Orthop. 1982;170:141–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Elbert KE, Kurth M, Bartel DL, Eyerer P, Rimnic CM, Wright TM. In vivo changes in material properties of Polyethylene and their effects on stresses associated with surface damage of Polyethylene components. Presented at the Orthopaedic Research Society 34th annual meeting; February 1–4,1988; Atlanta, Ga.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Engh GA. Failure of the Polyethylene bearing surface of a total knee replacement within four years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:1093–1096.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ewald FC, Jacobs MA, Miegel RE, Walker PS, Poss R, Sledge CB. Kinematic total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:1032–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eyerer P, Ke YC. Property changes of UHMW Polyethylene hip cup endoprostheses during implantation. JBiomed Mater Res. 1984;18:1137–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mirra JM, Marder RA, Amstutz HC. The pathology of failed total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1982;170:175–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rose RM, Crugnola A, Ries M, Cimino WR, Paul I, Radin EL. On origins of high in vivo wear rates in Polyethylene components of total joint prostheses. Clin Orthop. 1979; 145:277–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rose RM, Nusbaum HJ, Schneider H, Ries M, Paul I, Crugnola A, et al. On the true wear rate of ultra high-molecular-weight Polyethylene in the total hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:537–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Walker PS, Hsieh HJ. Conformity in condylar replacement knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;59:222–228.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wright TM, Astrin DJ, Bansal MK, Rimnac CM, Green T, Insall JN, et al. Failure of carbon-fiber reinforced Polyethylene total knee replacement components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:926–932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wright TM, Bartel DL. The problem of surface damage in Polyethylene total knee components. Clin Orthop. 1986; 205:67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wright TM, Hood RW, Burstein AJ. Analysis of material failures. Orthop. Clin North Am. 1982;13:33–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wright TM, Rimnac CM, Faris PM, Bansal M. Analysis of surface damage in retrieved carbon fiber-reinforced and piain Polyethylene tibial components from posterior sta-bilized total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:1312–1319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wright TM, Rimnac CM, Stulberg SD, Mintz L, Tsao AK, Klein RW, et al. Wear of polyethylene in total joint replacements.Clin Orthop. 1992;276:126–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Nashed RS, Becker DA, Gustilo RB. Are cementless acetabular components the cause of excess wear and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop. 1995;317:19–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Jasty M, Bragdon C, Jiranek W, Chandler H, Maloney W, Harris WH. Etiology of osteolysis around porous-coated cementless total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop. 1994;308: 111–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Wan Z, Dorr LD. Natural history of femoral focal osteolysis with proximal ingrowth smooth stem implant. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:718–725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Perez R, Deshmukh R, Ranawat CS. Polyethylene wear and periprosthetic osteolysis in acetabular components with cylindrical inserts. Orthop Trans. 1995;19:319.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bono J, Sanford L, Toussaint J. Polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty: observations from retrieved AML plus hip implants with ACS polyethylene liner. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:119–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Bierbaum B, Mattingly D, Leone A, Karpos P, Van-Flandern G, Gomes S. Fixation, polyethylene wear, and osteolysis with the press-fit dual geometry acetabulum at minimum seven years follow-up. Orthop Trans. 1995–96;19:753.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Dorr LD, Lewonowski K, Lucero M, Harris M, Wan Z. Failure mechanisms of anatomic porous replacement/ce-mentless total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1997;343: 157–678.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kim YH, Kim VE. Cementless porous-coated anatomic medullary locking total hip prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:243–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Owen T, Moran C, Smith S, Pinder I. Results of unce-mented porous-coated anatomic total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:258–262.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dali DM, Grobbelaar CJ, Learmonth ID, Dau G. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1986;211:85–90.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Johanson NA, Bullough PG, Wilson PK Jr, Salvati EA, Ranawat CS. The microscopic anatomy of the bone-ce-ment interface in the failed total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1987;216:123–135.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Johanson NA, Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA, Merkow RL. Fourteen year follow-up study of a patient with massive calcar resorption: a case report. Clin Orthop. 1986;213:189–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Remagen W, Morschler E. Histologie results with cement-free implant hip sockets of Polyethylene. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1984;103:145–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wilson PD Jr, Rimnac CM, Wright TM. Wear as a cause of failure in total hip arthroplasty. In: Noble J, Galasko CBS, eds. Recent Developments in Orthopaedic Surgery. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wroblewski BM. Wear of high density Polyethylene on bone and cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1979;61:498–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Blunn GW, Bell CJ. The effect of oxidation on the wear of untreated and stabilized UHMWPE. Trans Orthop Res Soc. 1996;21:482.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sun DC, Wang A, Stark C, Dumbleton J. Development of stabilized UHMWPE implants with improved oxidation resistance via crosslinking. Presented at Scientific Exhibit, 63rd annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; February 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • James V. Bono
  • George Faithfull

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations