Influence of the Wear-Couple and Patient Activity on Linear Wear in Total Hip Replacement

  • Christian Hendrich
  • N. Wollmerstedt
  • S. Goebel
  • J. M. Martell
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)


In total hip replacement different factors have a major impact on wear behaviour and long-term durability. Beside the wear-couple the influence of patient activity is relatively undefined. Aim of this studies was to examine the wear behaviour of alumina heads in combination with conventional polyethylene (PE) (n=99) vs. CoCr heads (n=109), the wear behaviour of alumina heads in combination with highly-crosslinked PE (n=70), and the influence of patient activity in the groups with alumina heads. Linear wear was analyzed using Martell’s method and activity was assessed using electronic step-watch monitors. Compared to CoCr heads the use of alumina significantly reduced linear wear. A further reduction was observed with the combination of alumina and highly-crosslinked PE after a certain period of higher wear during bedding-in. In spite of being nearly 20 years younger the activity in the patients with the highly-crosslinked PE differed only about 20% compared to the patients with conventional PE. In conclusion the selection of the wear-couple has a significant influence on linear wear while patient activity in our study groups was in the same magnitude.


Wear Rate Polyethylene Wear Linear Wear Linear Wear Rate Ceramic Femoral Head 
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.
    Bankston AB, Faris PM, Keating EM and Ritter MA. Polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty in patient-matched groups. A comparison of stainless steel, cobalt chrome, and titanium-bearing surfaces. J Arthroplasty 8: 315–322, 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Devane PA and Horne JG. Assessment of polyethylene wear in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 59–72, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Digas G, Karrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H and Herberts P. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in cemented THA: randomized study of 61 hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 126–138, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris WH. The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop 311: 46–53, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heisel C, Silva M and Schmalzried TP. In vivo wear of bilateral total hip replacements: conventional versus crosslinked polyethylene. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125: 555–557, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heisel C, Silva M, Skipor AK, Jacobs JJ and Schmalzried TP. The relationship between activity and ions in patients with metal-on-metal bearing hip prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87: 781–787, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Izquierdo-Avino RJ, Siney PD and Wroblewski BM. Polyethylene wear in the Charnley offset bore acetabular cup. A radiological analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78: 82–84, 1996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jasty M, Goetz DD, Bragdon CR, Lee KR, Hanson AE, Elder JR and Harris WH. Wear of polyethylene acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. An analysis of one hundred and twenty-eight components retrieved at autopsy or revision operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79: 349–358, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ and DiCesare PE. Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 6: 198–203, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joshi AB, Markovic L and Ilchmann T. Polyethylene wear and calcar osteolysis. Am J Orthop 28: 45–48, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Livermore J, Ilstrup D and Morrey B. Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72: 518–528, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martell J, Berkson E, Berger R and Jacobs J. Comparison of two and three-dimensional computerized polyethylene wear analysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85: 1111–1117, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martell JM and Berdia S. Determination of polyethylene wear in total hip replacements with use of digital radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79: 1635–1641, 1997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muratoglu OK, Greenbaum ES, Bragdon CR, Jasty M, Freiberg AA and Harris WH. Surface analysis of early retrieved acetabular polyethylene liners: a comparison of conventional and highly crosslinked polyethylenes. J Arthroplasty 19: 68–77, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orishimo KF, Claus AM, Sychterz CJ and Engh CA. Relationship between polyethylene wear and osteolysis in hips with a second-generation porous-coated cementless cup after seven years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A: 1095–1099, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey EJ, Jackson WJ, Rosa M, Fa’vae F, McKellop HA, McClung CD, Martell J, Moreland JR and Amstutz HC. Wear Is a Function of Use, Not Time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 381: 36–46, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmalzried TP and Callaghan JJ. Wear in total hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81: 115–136, 1999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ, Jackson WO, dela RM, Fa’vae F, McKellop HA, McClung CD, Martell J, Moreland JR and Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 36–46, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Northfield MR, Akizuki KH, Frankel RE, Belcher G and Amstutz HC. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80: 54–59, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sychterz CJ, Orishimo KF and Engh CA. Sterilization and polyethylene wear: clinical studies to support laboratory data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A: 1017–1022, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK, Bryson L, Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ and Miller RK. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A: 1688–1694, 2001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wan Z and Dorr LD. Natural history of femoral focal osteolysis with proximal ingrowth smooth stem implant. J Arthroplasty 11: 718–725, 1996.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Willert HG, Bertram H and Buchhorn GH. Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. The role of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particles. Clin Orthop Relat Res 95-metal-polyethylene in clinical trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 86–94, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wroblewski BM. Direction and rate of socket wear in Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67: 757–761, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zicat B, Engh CA and Gokcen E. Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77: 432–439, 1995.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zichner LP and Willert HG. Comparison of alumina-polyethylene and metal-polyethylene in clinical trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 86–94, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Hendrich
    • 1
  • N. Wollmerstedt
  • S. Goebel
  • J. M. Martell
  1. 1.Schloss WerneckOrthopädisches KrankenhausWerneckGermany

Personalised recommendations