Advanced Testing of Ceramic Femoral Knee Components

  • Thomas Pandorf
  • Meinhard Kuntz
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


For over 35 years, ceramics in joint replacement are known for their excellent biocompatibility, extremely low wear rates and excellent wettability. Ceramic on ceramic bearings have shown excellent survival rates. Also in hard on soft bearings, i. e. ceramic ball head against (highly crosslinked) polyethylene, a reduction in wear rate compared to metal on (highly crosslinked) polyethylene was shown in-vitro as well as in-vivo.

In knee arthroplasty a ceramic component has several advantages: First of all, there is no ion release implying no risk for potential allergies. Secondly, the extreme hardness of the material leads to a scratch resistance surface and less PE wear over time. In the past, ceramic femoral components in knee applications were limited in the variety of design possibilities due to necessary thickness of the component resulting from the associated fracture risk of ceramics.

By the development of an alumina matrix composite material with increased mechanical properties it is possible to develop a ceramic femoral component which has nearly the same design as a metal component and uses the same surgical approach as well as instruments. This offers the surgeon the opportunity to choose intraoperatively between metal or ceramic femoral components. Extensive in-vitro testing derived from in-vivo loading situations has shown that ceramic femoral components achieve execellent superior mechanical test results. The reliability of the components is build on testing of the design by two burst tests and a fatigue test to evaluate the design of the ceramic component. A proof test which is performed on each individual component before release for sale ensures highest quality of the ceramic knee components.


Total Knee Arthroplasty Total Knee Replacement Ceramic Component Total Knee Prosthesis Proof Test 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bader R, Mittelmeier W, Steinhauser E. Failure analysis of total knee replacement: Basics and methodological aspects of the damage analysis. (In press, Orthopäde, 2006).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sonny Bal B, Greenberg DD, Buhrmester L, Aleto TJ. Primary TKA with a Zirconia Ceramic Femoral Component. J Knee Surg 2006;19:89–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ, Skipor AK, Urban RM. Metal degradation products: a cause for concern in metal-metal bearings? Clin Orthop 2003;417:139–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenwald AS, Garino JP. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Committee on Biomedical Engineering; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Committee on Hip and Knee Arthritis. Alternative bearing surfaces: the good, the bad, and the ugly. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83Suppl 2 Pt 2:68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oonishi H, Tsuji E, Mizukoshi T et al. Wear of polyethylene and alumina in clinical cases of alumina total knee prostheses. Bioceramics 1991;3:137–145.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baur W, Hönle W, Schuh A. Histopathologic changes in tissue surrounding revised metal-metal-bearings. BIOmaterialien 2004; 5(2): 86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bos I, Willmann G. Morphologic characteristics of periprosthetic tissues from hip prostheses with ceramic-ceramic couples. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72(4): 335–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell P, Shen Fu-Wen; Mc Kellop H. Biologic and Tribologic Consideration of Alternative Bearing Surfaces. Clin Orthop 2004; 418: 98–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fisher J, Galvin A, Tipper J, Stewart T, Stone M, Ingham E. Comparison of the Functional Biological Activity and Osteolytic Potential of Ceramic on Ceramic and Cross Linked Polyethylene Bearings in the Hip. J.A. D’Antonio, M. Dietrich (eds.): Bioceramics and Alternative Bearings in Joint Arthroplasty. 10th BIOLOX® Symposium Proceedings. Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt 2005: 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abernethy PJ, Robinson CM, Fowler RM. Fracture of the metal tibial tray after kinematic total knee replacement. A common cause of early aseptic failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78(2):220–225.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright J, Ewald FC, Walker PS, Thomas WH, Poss R, Sledge CB. Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic prosthesis. Results after five to nine years: a follow-up note. J bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:1003–1009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oonishi H, Aono M, Murata N, Kushitani S. Alumina versus polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1992;282:95–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yasuda K, Miyagi N, Kaneda K. Low friction total knee arthroplasty with the alumina ceramic condylar prosthesis. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1993;53:15–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oonishi H, Fujita H, Itoh S, Kin S, Amino H. Development and improvement of ceramic TKP for 19 years and clinical results. Key Eng Mat 2002;14:479–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oonishi H, Kim SC, Kyomoto M, Masuda S, Asano T, Clarke IC. Change in UHMWPE properties of retrieved ceramic total knee prosthesis in clinical use for 23 years. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005;74:754–759.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wimmer, M. Internal Paper, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Pandorf
    • 1
  • Meinhard Kuntz
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Products DivisionCeramTec AGPlochingenGermany
  2. 2.CeramTec AGPlochingenGermany

Personalised recommendations