Advertisement

In-Vitro and In-Vivo Ceramic Debris with Ceramic Prosthesis

  • Aldo Toni
  • F. Traina
  • M. De Fine
  • E. Tassinari
  • F. Biondi
  • A. Galvani
  • F. Pilla
  • S. Stea
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)

Abstract

Ceramic prostheses have had some promising long term results [1], and modern metal-back alumina cups have shown very good clinical results [2,3,4]. Alumina has excellent tribological properties, a very high Young’s modulus that leads to very good compression strength, but it has poor bending strength: it has no way to deform [5]. This means that ceramic can break without warning. With modern ceramics, under normal physiologic conditions, the fatigue limit is never reached, therefore ceramic head fractures are seldom reported (0.004%10 in one study). On the contrary, ceramic liner fractures are not well recognized and their frequency could be underestimated. Besides, it is difficult to identify those patients at risk, because liner fractures can be related to multiple causes: dislocation, impingement, malpositioning, microseparation [6,7]. When a ceramic fracture involves the liner and is the consequence of repeated micro-trauma, the diagnosis is rarely made early, except when ceramic fragments are visible on X-ray. Moreover, revision surgery decision making after a failed ceramic-on-ceramic prosthesis is troublesome: the ceramic fragments which have spread into the periarticular space are abrasive, and they can lead to early failure of the revision procedure. In a multicenter study on 105 total hip revisions due to ceramic head fracture, Allain et al. reported a second revision rate of 31% (33 hips) at 5 years follow up. The main cause of the repeat revisions was aseptic loosening due to metal and polymethyl methacrylate wear [8].

Keywords

Ceramic Fragment Ceramic Liner Ceramic Bearing Ceramic Fracture Modular Neck 
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.
    Hamadouche, M.; Boutin, P.; Daussange, J.; Bolander, M. E.; and Sedel, L.: Alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 18.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84-A(1): 69–77, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bizot, P.; Hannouche, D.; Nizard, R.; Witvoet, J.; and Sedel, L.: Hybrid alumina total hip arthroplasty using a press-fit metal-backed socket in patients younger than 55 years. A six-to 11-year evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 86(2): 190–194, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Antonio, J.; Capello, W.; Manley, M.; Naughton, M.; and Sutton, K.: Alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty: five-year results of a prospective randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (436): 164–171, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garino, J. P.: Modern ceramic-on-ceramic total hip systems in the United States: early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (379): 41–47, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hannouche, D.; Hamadouche, M.; Nizard, R.; Bizot, P.; Meunier, A.; and Sedel, L.: Ceramics in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (430): 62–71, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D’Antonio, J.; Capello, W.; Manley, M.; and Bierbaum, B.: New experience with alumina-on-alumina ceramic bearings for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 17(4): 390–397, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nevelos, J.; Ingham, E.; Doyle, C.; Streicher, R.; Nevelos, A.; Walter, W.; and Fisher, J.: Microseparation of the centers of alumina-alumina artificial hip joints during simulator testing produces clinically relevant wear rates and patterns. J Arthroplasty, 15(6): 793–795, 2000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allain, J.; Roudot-Thoraval, F.; Delecrin, J.; Anract, P.; Migaud, H.; and Goutallier, D.: Revision total hip arthroplasty performed after fracture of a ceramic femoral head. A multicenter survivorship study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 85-A(5): 825–830, 2003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Traina, F., Baleani M, Viceconti M, Toni A. Scentific Exhibit SE23: Modular neck primary prosthesis: eperimental and clinical outcomes. In 71st AAOS Annual Meeting. Edited, San Francisco, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Toni
    • 1
  • F. Traina
  • M. De Fine
  • E. Tassinari
  • F. Biondi
  • A. Galvani
  • F. Pilla
  • S. Stea
  1. 1.First Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Technology LaboratoryIstituti Ortopedici RizzoliBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations