Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 469, Issue 8, pp 2262–2277

History and Systematic Review of Wear and Osteolysis Outcomes for First-generation Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene

  • Steven M. Kurtz
  • Heather A. Gawel
  • Jasmine D. Patel
Symposium: UHMWPE for Arthroplasty: From Powder to Debris

Abstract

Background

Highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) was introduced to reduce wear and osteolysis in total joint arthroplasty. While many studies report wear and osteolysis associated with HXLPE, analytical techniques, clinical study design and followup, HXLPE formulation and implant design characteristics, and patient populations differ substantially among investigations, complicating a unified perspective.

Questions/purposes

Literature on first-generation HXLPE was summarized. We systematically reviewed the radiographic wear data and incidence of osteolysis for HXLPE in hip and knee arthroplasty.

Methods

PubMed identified 391 studies; 28 met inclusion criteria for a weighted-averages analysis of two-dimensional femoral head penetration rates. To determine the incidence of osteolysis, we estimated a pooled odds ratio using a random-effects model.

Results

Weighted-averages analyses of femoral head penetration rates in HXLPE liners and conventional UHMWPE liners resulted, respectively, in a mean two-dimensional linear penetration rate of 0.042 mm/year based on 28 studies (n = 1503 hips) and 0.137 mm/year based on 18 studies (n = 695 hips). The pooled odds ratio for the risk of osteolysis in HXLPE versus conventional liners was 0.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.06–0.27) among studies with minimum 5-year followup. We identified two clinical studies of HXLPE in TKA, preventing systematic analysis of outcomes.

Conclusions

HXLPE liner studies consistently report lower femoral head penetration and an 87% lower risk of osteolysis. Reduction in femoral head penetration or osteolysis risk is not established for large-diameter (> 32 mm) metallic femoral heads or ceramic femoral heads of any size. Few studies document the clinical performance of HXLPE in knees.

Supplementary material

11999_2011_1872_MOESM1_ESM.xls (82 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 82 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ainsworth R, Farling G, Bardos D. An improved bearing material for joint replacement prostheses: carbon fiber-reinforced UHMW polyethylene. In: Transactions of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials. Minneapolis, MN: Society for Biomaterials; 1977:119.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM F2565-06. Standard Guide for Extensively Irradiation-Crosslinked Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Fabricated Forms for Surgical Implant Applications. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell P, McKellop H, Schmalzreid TP, Gillespie WJ, Howie D, Jacobs J, Medley J, Merritt K. Metal on metal total hip replacement workshop consensus document. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(Suppl):S297–S303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    August AC, Aldam CH, Pynsent PB. The McKee-Farrar hip arthroplasty: a long-term study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68:520–527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ayers DC, Hays PL, Drew JM, Eskander MS, Osuch D, Bragdon CR. Two-year radiostereometric analysis evaluation of femoral head penetration in a challenging population of young total hip arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:9–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baker DA, Bellare A, Pruitt L. The effects of degree of crosslinking on the fatigue crack initiation and propagation resistance of orthopedic-grade polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;66:146–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker DA, Hastings RS, Pruitt L. Study of fatigue resistance of chemical and radiation crosslinked medical grade ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;46:573–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM. The effect of conformity, 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
  9. 9.
    Bartel DL, Rawlinson JJ, Burstein AH, Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr. Stresses in polyethylene components of contemporary total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;317:76–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beksac B, Salas A, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Salvati EA. Wear is reduced in THA performed with highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1765–1772.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bell CJ, Walker PS, Abeysundera MR, Simmons JM, King PM, Blunn GW. Effect of oxidation on delamination of ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene tibial components. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:280–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhambri SK, Gsell R, Kirkpatrick L, Swarts D, Blanchard CR, Crowninshield RD. The effect of aging on mechanical properties of melt-annealed highly crosslinked UHMWPE. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bitsch RG, Loidolt T, Heisel C, Ball S, Schmalzried TP. Reduction of osteolysis with use of Marathon cross-linked polyethylene: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1487–1491.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bizot P, Nizard R, Lerouge S, Prudhommeaux F, Sedel L. Ceramic/ceramic total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5:622–627.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blunn GW, Joshi AB, Minns RJ, Lidgren L, Lilley P, Ryd L, Engelbrecht E, Walker PS. Wear in retrieved condylar knee arthroplasties: a comparison of wear in different designs of 280 retrieved condylar knee prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:281–290.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bostrom MP, Bennett AP, Rimnac CM, Wright TM. The natural history of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:20–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boutin P, Christel P, Dorlot JM, Meunier A, de Roquancourt A, Blanquaert D, Herman S, Sedel L, Witvoet J. The use of dense alumina-alumina ceramic combination in total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res. 1988;22:1203–1232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1614–1620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bragdon CR, Barrett S, Martell JM, Greene ME, Malchau H, Harris WH. Steady-state penetration rates of electron beam-irradiated, highly cross-linked polyethylene at an average 45-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:935–943.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bragdon CR, Greene ME, Freiberg AA, Harris WH, Malchau H. Radiostereometric analysis comparison of wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene against 36- vs 28-mm femoral heads. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:125–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bragdon CR, Kwon YM, Geller JA, Greene ME, Freiberg AA, Harris WH, Malchau H. Minimum 6-year followup of highly cross-linked polyethylene in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:122–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Calvert GT, Devane PA, Fielden J, Adams K, Horne JG. A double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing highly cross-linked and conventional polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:505–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Champion AR, Li S, Saum K, Howard E, Simmons W. The effect of crystallinity on the physical properties of UHMWPE. Trans Orthop Res Soc. 1994;19:585.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan FW, Bobyn JD, Medley JB, Krygier JJ, Yue S, Tanzer M. Engineering issues and wear performance of metal on metal hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:96–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip: a new operation. Lancet 1961;I:1129–1132.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Charnley J. Tissue reaction to the polytetraflouroethyene. Lancet. 1963;II:1379.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Charnley J. Low friction principle. In: Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip: Theory and Practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1979:3–16.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Charnley J. Personal communication, 1971: Sterilization of Charnley total hip sockets of high density polyethylene. In: Kurtz SM, ed. The UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook: Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009:39–40.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Charnley J, Halley DK. Rate of wear in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;112:170–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Collier JP, Sperling DK, Currier JH, Sutula LC, Saum KA, Mayor MB. Impact of gamma sterilization on clinical performance of polyethylene in the knee. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:377–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collier JP, Sutula LC, Currier BH, Currier JH, Wooding RE, Williams IR, Farber KB, Mayor MB. Overview of polyethylene as a bearing material: comparison of sterilization methods. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:76–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Collier MB, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA. Shelf age of the polyethylene tibial component and outcome of unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:763–769.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Connelly GM, Rimnac CM, Wright TM, Hertzberg RW, Manson JA. Fatigue crack propagation behavior of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene. J Orthop Res. 1984;2:119–125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Costa L, Brach de Prever EM. UHMWPE for Arthroplasty. Turin, Italy: Edizioni Minerva Medica; 2000.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Currier BH, Currier JH, Mayor MB, Lyford KA, Collier JP, Van Citters DW. Evaluation of oxidation and fatigue damage of retrieved crossfire polyethylene acetabular cups. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2023–2029.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Currier BH, Currier JH, Mayor MB, Lyford KA, Van Citters DW, Collier JP. In vivo oxidation of gamma-barrier-sterilized ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:721–731.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Bierbaum BE, Ramakrishnan R, Naughton M, Sutton K. Five-year experience with Crossfire highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:143–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Digas G, Karrholm J, Thanner J, Herberts P. 5-year experience of highly cross-linked polyethylene in cemented and uncemented sockets: two randomized studies using radiostereometric analysis. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:746–754.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Digas G, Karrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of penetration rate in cemented and uncemented sockets using radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:6–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dorr LD, Hilton KR, Wan Z, Markovich GD, Bloebaum R. Modern metal on metal articulation for total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:108–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Shahrdar C, Sirianni L, Boutary M, Yun A. Clinical performance of a Durasul highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner for total hip arthroplasty at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1816–1821.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Duffy GP, Wannomae KK, Rowell SL, Muratoglu OK. Fracture of a cross-linked polyethylene liner due to impingement. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:158.e15–19.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dumbleton JH, D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Wang A. The basis for a second-generation highly cross-linked UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:265–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Engh CA Jr, Stepniewski AS, Ginn SD, Beykirch SE, Sychterz-Terefenko CJ, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. A randomized prospective evaluation of outcomes after total hip arthroplasty using cross-linked marathon and non-cross-linked Enduron polyethylene liners. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fukui K, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Ichiseki T, Kitamura K, Matsumoto T. Wear comparison between a highly cross-linked polyethylene and conventional polyethylene against a zirconia femoral head: minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:45–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Garcia-Rey E, Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Cruz-Pardos A, Ortega-Chamarro J. New polyethylenes in total hip replacement: a prospective, comparative clinical study of two types of liner. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:149–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Garino JP. Modern ceramic-on-ceramic total hip systems in the United States: early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:41–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Garvin KL, Hartman CW, Mangla J, Murdoch N, Martell JM. Wear analysis in THA utilizing oxidized zirconium and crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:141–145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Geller JA, Malchau H, Bragdon C, Greene M, Harris WH, Freiberg AA. Large diameter femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene: minimum 3-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:53–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gioe TJ, Sharma A, Tatman P, Mehle S. Do “premium” joint implants add value? Analysis of high cost joint implants in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:48–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Glyn-Jones S, Isaac S, Hauptfleisch J, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. Does highly cross-linked polyethylene wear less than conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty? A double-blind, randomized, and controlled trial using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:337–343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, Murray DW. The creep and wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene: a three-year randomised, controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:556–561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Good V, Widding K, Scott M, Jani S. The sensitivity of crosslinked UHMWPE to abrasive wear: hips vs. knees. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Greer K, King R, Chan FW. Effects of raw material, irradiation dose, and irradiation source on crosslinking of UHMWPE. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Griffith MJ, Seidenstein MK, Williams D, Charnley J. Socket wear in Charnley low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;137:37–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Grobbelaar CJ, Du Plessis TA, Marais F. The radiation improvment of polyethylene prostheses: a preliminary study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978;60:370–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Halley D, Glassman A, Crowninshield RD. Recurrent dislocation after revision total hip replacement with a large prosthetic femoral head: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:827–830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hammerberg EM, Zhinian W, Manish D, Lawrence DD. Wear and range of motion of different femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:839–843.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Harris WH. The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;311:46–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Heisel C, Silva M, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. Short-term in vivo wear of cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:748–751.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heisel C, Silva M, Schmalzried TP. In vivo wear of bilateral total hip replacements: conventional versus crosslinked polyethylene. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125:555–557.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hodrick JT, Severson EP, McAlister DS, Dahl B, Hofmann AA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene is safe for use in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2806–2812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hopper RH Jr, Young AM, Orishimo KF, Engh CA Jr. Effect of terminal sterilization with gas plasma or gamma radiation on wear of polyethylene liners. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:464–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hopper RH Jr, Young AM, Orishimo KF, McAuley JP. Correlation between early and late wear rates in total hip arthroplasty with application to the performance of marathon cross-linked polyethylene liners. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:60–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Ianuzzi A, Kurtz SM. Sterilization of joint replacement materials. In: Revell PA, ed. Joint Replacement Technology. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd; 2008:407–430.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Ise K, Kawanabe K, Tamura J, Akiyama H, Goto K, Nakamura T. Clinical results of the wear performance of cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1216–1220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jacobs JJ, Shanbhag A, Glant TT, Black J, Galante JO. Wear debris in total joint replacements. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994;2:212–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jani S, Scott M. Wear debris generation in joint simulator testing of crosslinked UHMWPE. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kawate K, Ohmura T, Kawahara I, Tamai K, Ueha T, Takemura K. Differences in highly cross-linked polyethylene wear between zirconia and cobalt-chromium femoral heads in Japanese patients: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1221–1224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kiely PD, Harty JA, McElwain JP. Hylamer wear rates and shelf life: a clinical correlation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005;71:429–434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choi YW, Kwon OR. Intermediate results of simultaneous alumina-on-alumina bearing and alumina-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearing total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:885–891.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kothari M, Bartel DL, Booker JF. Surface geometry of retrieved McKee-Farrar total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(Suppl):S141–S147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Krushell RJ, Fingeroth RH, Cushing MC. Early femoral head penetration of a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner vs a conventional polyethlene liner. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:73–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kurtz SM. The UHMWPE Handbook: Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement. New York, NY: Academic Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kurtz SM. Packaging and sterilization of UHMWPE. In: Kurtz SM, ed. The UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook: Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009:21–30.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kurtz SM, ed. The UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook: Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kurtz SM, Hozack WJ, Purtill JJ, Marcolongo M, Kraay MJ, Goldberg VM, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J, Rimnac CM, Edidin AA. Significance of in vivo degradation for polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:47–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kurtz SM, Manley M, Wang A, Taylor S, Dumbleton J. Comparison of the properties of annealed crosslinked (Crossfire) and conventional polyethylene as hip bearing materials. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2002-2003;61:17–26.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kurtz SM, Mazzucco D, Rimnac CM, Schroeder D. Anisotropy and oxidative resistance of highly crosslinked UHMWPE after deformation processing by solid-state ram extrusion. Biomaterials. 2006;27:24–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kurtz SM, Muratoglu OK, Evans M, Edidin AA. Advances in the processing, sterilization, and crosslinking of ultra- high molecular weight polyethylene for total joint arthroplasty. Biomaterials. 1999;20:1659–1688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Kurtz SM, Rimnac CM, Hozack WJ, Turner J, Marcolongo M, Goldberg VM, Kraay MJ, Edidin AA. In vivo degradation of polyethylene liners after gamma sterilization in air. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:815–823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Lachiewicz PF, Heckman DS, Soileau ES, Mangla J, Martell JM. Femoral head size and wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene at 5 to 8 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:3290–3296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Laurent MP, Blanchard CR, Yao JQ, Johnson TS, Gilbertson LN, Swarts D, Crowninshield RD. The wear of highly crosslinked UHMWPE in the presence of abrasive particles: hip and knee simulator studies. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Leung SB, Egawa H, Stepniewski A, Beykirch S, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA Sr. Incidence and volume of pelvic osteolysis at early follow-up with highly cross-linked and noncross-linked polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:134–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Li S, Burstein AH. Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: the material and its use in total joint implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1080–1090.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Li S, Chang JD, Barrena EG, Furman BD, Wright TM, Salvati E. Nonconsolidated polyethylene particles and oxidation in Charnley acetabular cups. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:54–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    MacDonald D, Kurtz SM, Sakona A, Rimnac C. In vivo oxidation, oxidation potential, and mechanical properties of first generation highly crosslinked polyethylenes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 December 16 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mall NA, Nunley RM, Zhu JJ, Maloney WJ, Barrack RL, Clohisy JC. The incidence of acetabular osteolysis in young patients with conventional versus highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:372–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Manning DW, Chiang PP, Martell JM, Galante JO, Harris WH. In vivo comparative wear study of traditional and highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:880–886.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Martell JM, Verner JJ, Incavo SJ. Clinical performance of a highly cross-linked polyethylene at two years in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:55–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:773–782.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    McGovern TF, Ammeen DJ, Collier JP, Currier BH, Engh GA. Rapid polyethylene failure of unicondylar tibial components sterilized with gamma irradiation in air and implanted after a long shelf life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:901–906.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1966;48:245–259.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, Campbell P, Salovey R. Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:157–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    McKellop HA, Shen FW, Campbell P, Ota T. Effect of molecular weight, calcium stearate, and sterilization methods on the wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene acetabular cups in a hip simulator. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:329–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    McKnulty D, Swope S. The effect of crosslinking UHMWPE on in-vitro wear rates of fixed and mobile bearing knees. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Medel F, Kurtz SM, Klein G, Levine H, Sharkey P, Austin M, Kraay M, Rimnac CM. Clinical, surface damage and oxidative performance of Poly II tibial inserts after long-term implantation. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2008;18:151–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Minoda Y, Aihara M, Sakawa A, Fukuoka S, Hayakawa K, Tomita M, Umeda N, Ohzono K. Comparison between highly cross-linked and conventional polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2009;16:348–351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Miyanishi K, Hara T, Kaminomachi S, Maekawa M, Iwamoto M, Torisu T. Short-term wear of Japanese highly cross-linked polyethylene in cementless THA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008;128:995–1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Moore KD, Beck PR, Petersen DW, Cuckler JM, Lemons JE, Eberhardt AW. Early failure of a cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2499–2504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Mu Z, Tian J, Wu T, Yang J, Pei F. A systematic review of radiological outcomes of highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2009;33:599–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Jasty M, Harris WH. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. Recipient of the 1999 HAP Paul Award. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:149–160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Mutimer J, Devane PA, Adams K, Horne JG. Highly crosslinked polyethylene reduces wear in total hip arthroplasty at 5 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3228–3233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Nair PD. Currently practised sterilization methods—some inadvertent consequences. J Biomater Appl. 1995;10:121–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Nakahara I, Nakamura N, Nishii T, Miki H, Sakai T, Sugano N. Minimum five-year follow-up wear measurement of longevity highly cross-linked polyethylene cup against cobalt-chromium or zirconia heads. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1182–1187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Nizard RS, Sedel L, Christel P, Meunier A, Soudry M, Witvoet J. Ten-year survivorship of cemented ceramic-ceramic total hip prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;282:53–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Olyslaegers C, Defoort K, Simon JP, Vandenberghe L. Wear in conventional and highly cross-linked polyethylene cups: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:489–494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Oonishi H, Clarke IC, Masuda S, Amino H. Study of retrieved acetabular sockets made from high-dose, cross-linked polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:129–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Oonishi H, Kim SC, Takao Y, Kyomoto M, Iwamoto M, Ueno M. Wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cup in Japan. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:944–949.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Oonishi H, Takayama Y, Tsuji E. Improvement of polyethylene by irradiation in artificial joints. Rad Phys Chem. 1992;39:495–504.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Oral E, Wannomae KK, Hawkins N, Harris WH, Muratoglu OK. Alpha-tocopherol-doped irradiated UHMWPE for high fatigue resistance and low wear. Biomaterials. 2004;25:5515–5522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Premnath V, Harris WH, Jasty M, Merrill EW. Gamma sterilization of UHMWPE articular implants: an analysis of the oxidation problem. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1741–1753.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Rajadhyaksha AD, Brotea C, Cheung Y, Kuhn C, Ramakrishnan R, Zelicof SB. Five-year comparative study of highly cross-linked (Crossfire) and traditional polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:161–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ramani K, Parasnis NC. Process-induced effects in compression molding of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). In: Gsell RA, Stein HL, Ploskonka JJ, eds. Characterization and Properties of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1998:5–23.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Reeves EA, Barton DC, FitzPatrick DP, Fisher J. Comparison of gas plasma and gamma irradiation in air sterilization on the delamination wear of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene used in knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214:249–255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ries MD, Weaver K, Beals N. Safety and efficacy of ethylene oxide sterilized polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:159–163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Ries MD, Weaver K, Rose RM, Gunther J, Sauer W, Beals N. Fatigue strength of polyethylene after sterilization by gamma irradiation or ethylene oxide. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:87–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Rimnac CM, Klein RW, Betts F, Wright TM. Post-irradiation aging of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:1052–1056.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ring PA. Complete replacement arthroplasty of the hip by the ring prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1968;50:720–731.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Rohrl S, Nivbrant B, Mingguo L, Hewitt B. In vivo wear and migration of highly cross-linked polyethylene cups a radiostereometry analysis study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:409–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Rohrl SM, Li MG, Nilsson KG, Nivbrant B. Very low wear of non-remelted highly cross-linked polyethylene cups: an RSA study lasting up to 6 years. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:739–745.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Schmalzried TP, Jasty M, Harris WH. Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty: the concept of effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:849–863.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Schmidt MB, Hamilton JV. The effects of calcium stearate on the properties of UHMWPE. Trans Orthop Res Soc. 1996;21:22.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Scott DL, Campbell PA, McClung CD, Schmalzried TP. Factors contributing to rapid wear and osteolysis in hips with modular acetabular bearings made of hylamer. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:35–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Sedel L, Kerboull L, Christel P, Meunier A, Witvoet J. Alumina-on-alumina hip replacement: results and survivorship in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:658–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Shia DS, Clohisy JC, Schinsky MF, Martell JM, Maloney WJ. THA with highly cross-linked polyethylene in patients 50 years or younger. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2059–2065.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Streicher RM. Ionizing irradiation for sterilization and modification of high molecular weight polyethylenes. Plast Rubber Proc Appl. 1988;10:221–229.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Sutula LC, Collier JP, Saum KA, Currier BH, Currier JH, Sanford WM, Mayor MB, Wooding RE, Sperling DK, Williams IR, Kasprzack DJ, Suprenant VA. Impact of gamma sterilization on clinical performance of polyethylene in the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:28–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Swarts D, Gsell R, King R, Devanathan D, Wallace S, Lin S, Rohr W. Aging of calcium stearate-free polyethylene. In: Transactions of the 5th World Biomaterials Congress. Mount Laurel, NJ: Society for Biomaterials; 1996:196.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Tower SS, Currier JH, Currier BH, Lyford KA, Van Citters DW, Mayor MB. Rim cracking of the cross-linked longevity polyethylene acetabular liner after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2212–2217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Triclot P, Grosjean G, El Masri F, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M. A comparison of the penetration rate of two polyethylene acetabular liners of different levels of cross-linking: a prospective randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1439–1445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Wang A, Essner A, Polineni VK, Stark C, Dumbleton JH. Lubrication and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacements. Tribol Int. 1998;31:17–33.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Wang A, Manley M, Serekian P. Wear and structural fatigue simulation of crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene for hip and knee bearing applications. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Waugh W. John Charnley: The Man and the Hip. London, UK: Springer-Verlag; 1990.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    White SE, Paxson RD, Tanner MG, Whiteside LA. Effects of sterilization on wear in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:164–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Whittaker JP, Charron KD, McCalden RW, Macdonald SJ, Bourne RB. Comparison of steady state femoral head penetration rates between two highly cross-linked polyethylenes in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:680–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Willert HG, Bertram H, Buchhorn GH. Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip: the role of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particles. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;258:95–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Eyerer P. Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethlene as Biomaterial in Orthopedic Surgery. Toronto, Canada: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 1991.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Williams IR, Mayor MB, Collier JP. The impact of sterilization method on wear in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:170–180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Winter M, Griss P, Scheller G, Moser T. Ten- to 14-year results of a ceramic hip prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;282:73–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Wright TM, Bartel DL. The problem of surface damage in polyethylene total knee components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;205:67–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Wright TM, Fukubayashi T, Burstein AH. The effect of carbon fiber reinforcement on contact area, contact pressure, and time-dependent deformation in polyethylene tibial components. J Biomed Mater Res. 1981;15:719–730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Dowson D, Collins SN. Prospective clinical and joint simulator studies of a new total hip arthroplasty using alumina ceramic heads and cross-linked polyethylene cups. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:280–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Wrona M, Mayor MB, Collier JP, Jensen RE. The correlation between fusion defects and damage in tibial polyethylene bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:92–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Yao JQ, Lu MP, Johnson TS, Gilbertson LN, Swarts D, Blanchard CR, Crowninshield RD. Improved resistance to wear, delamination and posterior loading fatigue damage of electron beam irradiated, melt-annealed, highly crosslinked UHMWPE knee inserts. In: Kurtz SM, Gsell R, Martell J, eds. ASTM STP 1445. Highly Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene For Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven M. Kurtz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Heather A. Gawel
    • 2
  • Jasmine D. Patel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Exponent, IncPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations