Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 470, Issue 7, pp 1814–1825 | Cite as

Surface Damage Versus Tibial Polyethylene Insert Conformity: A Retrieval Study

  • Markus A. Wimmer
  • Michel P. Laurent
  • Jeannie D. Haman
  • Joshua J. Jacobs
  • Jorge O. Galante
Symposium: Retrieval Studies

Abstract

Background

Surface damage of the tibial polyethylene insert in TKA is thought to diminish with increasing conformity, based on computed lower contact stresses. Added constraint from higher conformity may, however, result in greater forces in vivo.

Questions/purposes

We therefore determined whether increased conformity was associated with increased surface pitting, delamination, creep, and polishing in a group of retrieved tibial inserts.

Methods

We compared 38 inserts with a dished articular surface (conforming group) with 31 inserts that were unconstrained and nonconforming in the sagittal plane (less conforming group). The two groups had identical polyethylene composition and processing history. The articulating surfaces were scored for pitting, delamination, deformation/creep, and polishing. Evidence of edge loading and the presence of embedded bone cement were also recorded.

Results

The conforming inserts were associated with higher delamination and pitting scores but lower polishing scores, even after adjusting for the effects of sex, age, insert thickness, and implantation duration. Long implantation duration and male sex were also associated with increased delamination, pitting, and polishing, whereas long shelf life was associated only with increased delamination. The conforming group also had approximately a fourfold greater prevalence of edge loading and approximately a threefold greater prevalence of embedded bone cement. The latter was associated with higher scores and proportions of delamination and pitting.

Conclusions

These findings suggest more conformity may increase surface fatigue damage in TKA. Higher constraint-induced stresses during secondary motions and more possibility for edge loading and bone cement capture on a dished surface may account for these results.

Clinical Relevance

The selection of materials with high fatigue resistance may be particularly important for high-conformity/constraint tibial inserts. In addition, awareness of the benefits and trade-offs with conformity may allow better matching of TKA design to patient.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Thorsten Schwenke and Vivek Shekhawat who as two of the three independent observers performed the visual examination and scoring of the tibial articular components. We also thank Dr Sanjib Basu, Division of Statistics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA, for providing statistical consultation and Dr Anne Mündermann for helpful editorial input. This manuscript is dedicated to Dr. Aivars Berzins, our friend and colleague who initiated this study but, sadly, was unable to complete it before his sudden death.

References

  1. 1.
    Andriacchi TP. Dynamics of knee malalignment. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994;25:395–398.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Archard JF. Contact and rubbing of flat surface. J Appl Phys. 1953;24:981–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berzins A, Jacobs JJ, Berger R, Ed C, Natarajan R, Andriacchi T, Galante JO. Surface damage in machined ram-extruded and net-shape molded retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts of total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1534–1540.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blunn GW, Joshi AB, Lilley PA, Engelbrecht E, Ryd L, Lidgren L, Hardinge K, Nieder E, Walker PS. Polyethylene wear in unicondylar knee prostheses: 106 retrieved Marmor, PCA, and St Georg tibial components compared. Acta Orthop Scand. 1992;63:247–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Lowenstein JD, Jasty M, Syniuta WD. The importance of multidirectional motion on the wear of polyethylene. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1996;210:157–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstein AH, Wright TM. Biomechanics. In: Insall JN, Windsor RE, Scott WN, Kelly MA, Aglietti P, eds. Surgery of the Knee. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1993:43–62.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collier JP, Mayor MB, McNamara JL, Surprenant VA, Jensen RE. Analysis of the failure of 122 polyethylene inserts from uncemented tibial knee components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;273:232–242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L, Brach del Prever EM, Crova M, Gallinaro P. In vivo UHMWPE biodegradation of retrieved prosthesis. Biomaterials. 1998;19:1371–1385.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D’Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr. Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity, and knee alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:232–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fregly BJ, Marquez-Barrientos C, Banks SA, DesJardins JD. Increased conformity offers diminishing returns for reducing total knee replacement wear. J Biomech Eng. 2010;132:021007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Furman BD, Lipman J, Kligman M, Wright TM, Haas SB. Tibial post wear in posterior-stabilized knee replacements is design-dependent. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2650–2655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galvin AL, Kang L, Udofia I, Jennings LM, McEwen HM, Jin Z, Fisher J. Effect of conformity and contact stress on wear in fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. J Biomech. 2009;42:1898–1902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hood RW, Wright TM, Burstein AH. Retrieval analysis of total knee prostheses: a method and its application to 48 total condylar prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:829–842.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ingham E, Fisher J. Biological reactions to wear debris in total joint replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214:21–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keeney JA, Eunice S, Pashos G, Wright RW, Clohisy JC. What is the evidence for total knee arthroplasty in young patients? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:574–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurtz SM. UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Elsevier; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurtz SM, Bartel DL, Rimnac CM. Postirradiation aging affects stress and strain in polyethylene components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;350:209–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Landy MM, Walker PS. Wear of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene components of 90 retrieved knee prostheses. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3:S73–S85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laurent MP, Johnson TS, Yao JQ, Blanchard CR, Crowninshield RD. In vitro lateral versus medial wear of a knee prosthesis. Wear. 2003;255:1101–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lavernia CJ, Sierra RJ, Hungerford DS, Krackow K. Activity level and wear in total knee arthroplasty: a study of autopsy retrieved specimens. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:446–453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liau JJ, Cheng CK, Huang CH, Lo WH. The effect of malalignment on stresses in polyethylene component of total knee prostheses—a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002;17:140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lidgren L, Robertsson O, eds. The Swedish Arthroplasty Registry–Annual Report 2008. Lund, Sweden: Wallin & Dalholm AB; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McClung CD, Zahiri CA, Higa JK, Amstutz HC, Schmalzried TP. Relationship between body mass index and activity in hip or knee arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:35–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McDowell MA, Fryar CD, Ogden CL. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United States, 1988–1994. Vital Health Stat 11. 2009;249:1–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McGloughlin TM, Kavanagh AG. Wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in total knee prostheses: a review of key influences. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214:349–359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Medel FJ, Kurtz SM, Parvizi J, Klein GR, Kraay MJ, Rimnac CM. In vivo oxidation contributes to delamination but not pitting in polyethylene components for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:802–810.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naudie DD, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH. Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:53–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pascau A, Guardia B, Puertolas JA, Gómez-Barrena E. Knee model of hydrodynamic lubrication during the gait cycle and the influence of prosthetic joint conformity. J Orthop Sci. 2009;14:68–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Popoola OO, Yao JQ, Johnson TS, Blanchard CR. Wear, delamination, and fatigue resistance of melt-annealed highly crosslinked UHMWPE cruciate-retaining knee inserts under activities of daily living. J Orthop Res. 2010;28:1120–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Popov VL. Contact Mechanics and Friction: Physical Principles and Applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Puloski SK, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Tibial post wear in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty—an unrecognized source of polyethylene debris. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:390–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Revell PA. The combined role of wear particles, macrophages and lymphocytes in the loosening of total joint prostheses. J R Soc Interface. 2008;5:1263–1278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award Paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:7–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Surace MF, Berzins A, Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Berger RA, Natarajan RN, Andriacchi TP, Galante JO. Coventry Award Paper. Backsurface wear and deformation in polyethylene tibial inserts retrieved postmortem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:14–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Toohey KS, Blanchet TA, Heckelman DD. Effect of accelerated aging conditions on resultant depth-dependent oxidation and wear resistance of UHMWPE joint replacement bearing materials. Wear. 2003;255:1076–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang A, Stark C, Dumbleton JH. Mechanistic and morphological origins of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear debris in total joint replacement prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1996;210:141–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wasielewski RC. The causes of insert backside wear in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:232–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG. Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:31–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wasielewski RC, Parks N, Williams I, Surprenant H, Collier JP, Engh G. Tibial insert undersurface as a contributing source of polyethylene wear debris. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:53–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Willie BM, Foot LJ, Prall MW, Bloebaum RD. Surface damage analysis of retrieved highly crosslinked polyethylene tibial components after short-term implantation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;85:114–124.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wimmer MA, Andriacchi TP. Tractive forces during rolling motion of the knee: implications for wear in total knee replacement. J Biomech. 1997;30:131–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wimmer MA, Andriacchi TP, Natarajan RN, Loos J, Karlhuber M, Petermann J, Schneider E, Rosenberg AG. A striated pattern of wear in ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene components of Miller-Galante total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    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
  51. 51.
    Yao JQ, Blanchard CR, Lu X, Laurent MP, Johnson TS, Gilbertson LN, Swarts DF, 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 RA, Martell J, eds. Standard Technical Publication 1445: Crosslinked and Thermally Treated Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene for Joint Replacements. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2004:59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus A. Wimmer
    • 1
  • Michel P. Laurent
    • 1
  • Jeannie D. Haman
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Jacobs
    • 1
  • Jorge O. Galante
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations