Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 8, pp 2477–2482 | Cite as

Polished Trays Reduce Backside Wear Independent of Post Location in Posterior-stabilized TKAs

  • Matthew P. Abdel
  • Mark W. Gesell
  • Christen W. Hoedt
  • Kathleen N. Meyers
  • Timothy M. Wright
  • Steven B. Haas
Basic Research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

Backside damage of the polyethylene in TKA is a potential source of debris. The location of the tibial post in posterior-stabilized implants may influence micromotion, and thus affect backside damage, as may surface roughness.

Questions

We used implant retrieval analysis to (1) examine if there were differences in backside damage among three modern posterior-stabilized implants attributable to variable surface roughness; (2) determine if the location of damage on the tibial post affected the pattern of backside damage; and (3) determine if demographics influenced backside damage.

Methods

We identified 403 posterior-stabilized tibial retrieved inserts (147 NexGen®, 152 Optetrak®, 104 Genesis® II). The damage on the surfaces of the tibial posts was previously graded. The backside of the inserts (divided into quadrants) were scored for evidence of damage. The total quadrant damage was compared for each implant group, the relationship between post face damage and location of damage on the backside was determined for each implant group, and total backside damage was compared among the three implant groups.

Results

No correlation was found between the location of damage on the post and location of damage on the backside of the implant for any of the three groups. The Genesis® II polyethylene implants, which articulate with a highly polished tibial tray, showed a significantly lower total backside damage score (p < 0.01) when compared with the other two implant groups. The Genesis® II and Optetrak® showed significantly more damage in the posterior quadrants of the implants (p < 0.01) when compared with the anterior quadrants. A linear regression analysis revealed that lower tibial tray surface roughness was correlated with decreased damage.

Conclusions

An implant design with a highly polished tibial tray was associated with decreased backside damage. However, tibial post design and location did not influence the location of backside damage.

Clinical Relevance

Our study showed that a highly polished tibial tray was associated with decreased damage to the backside of polyethylene inserts independent of post design and location. These findings should be taken into consideration when new generations of implants are designed.

Keywords

Surface Roughness UHMWPE Damage Score Damage Mode Polyethylene Insert 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Barrack RL. Modularity of Prosthetic Implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1994;2:16–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartel DL, Burstein AH, Santavicca EA, Insall JN. Performance of the tibial component in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1026–1033.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ, Currier JH, Mayor MB, Collier JP. Knee wear measured in retrievals: a polished tray reduces insert wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1860–1868.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billi F, Sangiorgio SN, Aust S, Ebramzadeh E. Material and surface factors influencing backside fretting wear in total knee replacement tibial components. J Biomech. 2010;43:1310–1315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conditt MA, Ismaily SK, Alexander JW, Noble PC. Backside wear of modular ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene tibial inserts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1031–1037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conditt MA, Thompson MT, Usrey MM, Ismaily SK, Noble PC. Backside wear of polyethylene tibial inserts: mechanism and magnitude of material loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:326–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuckler JM, Lemons J, Tamarapalli JR, Beck P. Polyethylene damage on the nonarticular surface of modular total knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;410:248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolan MM, Kelly NH, Nguyen JT, Wright TM, Haas SB. Implant design influences tibial post wear damage in posterior-stabilized knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:160–167.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galvin A, Jennings LM, McEwen HM, Fisher J. The influence of tibial tray design on the wear of fixed-bearing total knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2008;222:1289–1293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gupta SK, Chu A, Ranawat AS, Slamin J, Ranawat CS. Osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:787–799.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harman MK, Banks SA, Hodge WA. Backside damage corresponding to articular damage in retrieved tibial polyethylene inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;458:137–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Jayabalan P, Furman BD, Cottrell JM, Wright TM. Backside wear in modern total knee designs. HSS J. 2007;3:30–34.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li S, Scuderi G, Furman BD, Bhattacharyya S, Schmieg JJ, Insall JN. Assessment of backside wear from the analysis of 55 retrieved tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:75–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Ellison BS, Berend KR. Polyethylene wear is influenced by manufacturing technique in modular TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2798–2805.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, Campbell P, Salovey R. Effect of sterilization method and other modifications on the wear resistance of acetabular cups made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: a hip-simulator study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1708–1725.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parks NL, Engh GA, Topoleski LD, Emperado J. The Coventry Award: Modular tibial insert micromotion. A concern with contemporary knee implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:10–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rao AR, Engh GA, Collier MB, Lounici S. Tibial interface wear in retrieved total knee components and correlations with modular insert motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1849–1855.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Small SR, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Buckley CA. A comparison in proximal tibial strain between metal-backed and all-polyethylene anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty tibial components. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:820–825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taki N, Goldberg VM, Kraay MJ, Rimnac CM. Backside wear of Miller-Galante I and Insall-Burstein II tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:198–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wasielewski RC. The causes of insert backside wear in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:232–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew P. Abdel
    • 1
  • Mark W. Gesell
    • 1
  • Christen W. Hoedt
    • 1
  • Kathleen N. Meyers
    • 2
  • Timothy M. Wright
    • 2
  • Steven B. Haas
    • 1
  1. 1.Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement DivisionHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiomechanicsHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations