Advertisement

Comparison of the wear of aged and non-aged ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene sterilized by gamma irradiation and by gas plasma

  • J FISHER
  • E. A REEVES
  • G. H ISAAC
  • K. A SAUM
  • W. M SANFORD
Article

Abstract

The wear of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene in artificial joints is a major cause of long-term osteolysis and loosening. The wear rate of aged and non-aged ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene sterilized by both gamma irradiation in air and gas plasma has been studied in simple configuration wear tests. Fourier transform infrared analysis (FTIR) showed marked oxidative degradation of the irradiated and aged material compared to the gas plasma sterilized and aged material. The wear rate of the irradiated and aged material was significantly (three times) higher than the gas plasma sterilized, gas plasma sterilized and aged, and non-sterilized materials. Alternative sterilization procedures such as gas plasma, when used instead of gamma irradiation in air, are likely to reduce the incidence of long-term osteolysis.

Keywords

Polymer Molecular Weight Fourier Fourier Transform Polyethylene 
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.
    H. G. WILLERT and M. SEMELITSCH, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 11 (1977) 157.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. LIVERMORE, P. ILSTRUP and B. MORREY, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 72-A (1992) 512.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. EYERER, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 18 (1984) 1137.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. C. SATULA, K. A. SAUM, J. D. COLLIER and B. H. CURRIER, Proc. 41st Orthopaedic Research Society, 1995, p. 118.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. M. RIMAC, R. W. KLEIN, F. BELLS, T. M. WRIGHT, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 76A (1994) 1052.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. McKELLOP, B. YEOM, D. C. SUN and Y. M. SANFORD, Proc. 42nd Orthopaedic Research Society, 1996, p. 483.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. FISHER, K. L. CHAN, J. L. HAILEY and M. STONE, J. Arthroplasty, 10 (1995) 689.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. V. HAMILTON, M. B. SCHMIDT and K. W. GREER, Proc. 42nd Orthopaedic Research Society, 1996, p. 20.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. W. SCHROEDER and K. M. POZORSKI, Proc. 42nd Orthopaedic Research Society, 1996, p. 478.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. SOMMERICH, T. FLYN, M. B. SCHMIDT and E. ZALENSKI, Proc. 42nd, Orthopaedic Research Society, 1995, p. 486.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. WANG, V. POLINENI, C. STARK and J. H. DUMBLETON, Proc. 42nd Orthopaedic Research Society, 1996, p. 473.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. W. BLUNN and C. J. BELL, Proc. 42nd Orthopaedic Research Society, 1996, p. 482.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. A. CAPUTO, J. Healthcare Mgmt. 10 (1991) 3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. M. SANFORD and K. A. SAUM, Proc 41st Orthopaedic Research Society, 1995, p. 119.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. V. NAGG and S. LI, Proceeding of the 16th Meeting of Society for Biomaterials, Charleston, 1990, p. 109.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. S. M. BARBOUR, D. C. BARTON and J. FISHER, Wear 181 (1994) 250.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J FISHER
    • 1
  • E. A REEVES
    • 1
  • G. H ISAAC
    • 2
  • K. A SAUM
    • 3
  • W. M SANFORD
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of LeedsLeeds LS2UK
  2. 2.DePuy InternationalLeedsUK
  3. 3.DePuy-DuPont OrthopaedicsNewark DelawareUSA

Personalised recommendations