Advertisement

Wear Simulation Testing for Joint Implants

  • Peter Liao
Chapter

Abstract

Joint simulators have been used in evaluating the wear resistance of joint implants, reproducing a clinical scenario, or exploring extreme testing condition. This chapter will review the type of joint simulators available and how they have been used in various applications. The achievement and limitations of such simulation will be discussed.

Keywords

Joint simulator Wear simulation Bio-tribology Joint arthroplasty Displacement-controlled simulators Force-controlled simulators Standards in wear simulation Hip implant wear Knee implant wear Joint lubrication Patient activities and implant wear Adverse testing conditions 

References

  1. 1.
    Mendenhall S. Hip and knee implant review. Orthop Netw News. 2017;28(3):1–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Affatato S, et al. Tribology and total hip joint replacement: current concepts in mechanical simulation. Med Eng Phys. 2008;30(10):1305–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zietz C, et al. Wear testing of total hip replacements under severe conditions. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015:1–18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher J, Dowson D. Tribology of total artificial joints. Proc Instn Mech Engrs. 1991;205:73–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liao Y-S, Benya P, McKellop H. Effect of protein lubrication on the wear properties of materials for prosthetic joints. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48(4):465–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKellop HA, et al. Polyethylene wear in prosthetic joints. In: Dowson D, Wright V, editors. Evaluation of artificial joints. London: FS Moore Ltd; 1977. p. 109–34.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera L, et al. Hip simulator evaluation of the effect of femoral head size on sequentially cross-linked acetabular liners. Wear. 2007;263(7–12):1034–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medley JB, et al. Kinematics of the MATCO hip simulator and issues related to wear testing of metal-metal implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997;211(1):89–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao Y-S, McNulty D, Hanes M. Wear rate and surface morphology of UHMWPE cups are affected by the serum lubricant concentration in a hip simulation test. Wear. 2003;255(7–12):1051–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ali M, et al. Influence of hip joint simulator design and mechanics on the wear and creep of metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016;230(5):389–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 14242-1. Implants for surgery—wear of total hip joint prostheses—Part 1: loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 14242-2. Implants for surgery—wear of total hip joint prostheses—Part 2: methods of measurement; 2016.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 14242-3. Implants for surgery—wear of total hip joint prostheses—Part 3: loading and displacement parameters for orbital bearing type wear testing machines and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2009.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 14243-1. Implants for surgery—wear of total knee-joint prostheses—loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with load control and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 14243-2. Implants for surgery—wear of total knee-joint prostheses—methods of measurement; 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 14243-3. Implants for surgery—wear of total knee-joint prostheses—loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with displacement control and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmalzried TP, et al. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after Total hip of knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80-A(1):54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raimondi MT, Sassi R, Pietrabissa R. A method for the evaluation of the change in volume of retrieved acetabular cups. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214(6):577–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO/CD 14242-4. Implants for surgery—wear of total hip-joint prostheses—Part 4: testing hip prostheses under variations in component positioning which results in direct edge loading: variation in cup inclination and medial-lateral centres offset; 2017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM, F3047M-15. Standard guide for high demand hip simulator wear testing of hard-on-hard articulations.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM F2582-14: Standard Test Method for impingement of acetabular prostheses.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM F2003-02. Standard practice for accelerated aging of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene after gamma irradiation in air; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    McKellop H, et al. Friction and wear properties of polymer, metal, and ceramic prosthetic joint materials evaluated on a multichammel screening device. J Biomed Materials Res. 1981;15:619–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whitaker D, et al. Effect of gamma irradiation and head size on the wear of moderately crosslinked UHMWPE inserts with EtO sterilisation in a hip simulation study. Bone Joint J Orthop Proc. 2013;95B(Supp 34):586.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wimmer MA, et al. Wear mechanisms in metal-on-metal bearings: the importance of tribochemical reaction layers. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(4):436–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams S, et al. Ceramic-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a comparative in vitro and in vivo study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:23–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen F-W, Lu Z, McKellop HA. Wear versus thickness and other features of 5-Mrad crosslinked UHMWPE acetabular liners. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):395–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang A, Essner A, Klein R. Effect of contact stress on friction and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total hip replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001;215(2):133–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McEwen HMJ, et al. The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech. 2005;38(2):357–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wimmer MA, et al. Knee flexion and daily activities in patients following total knee replacement: a comparison with ISO standard 14243. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hadley M, et al. Development of a Stop-Dwell-Start (SDS) protocol for in vitro wear testing of metal-on-metal total hip replacements. Phoenix, AZ: ASTM; 2012.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu F, Williams S, Fisher J. Effect of microseparation on contact mechanics in metal-on-metal hip replacements—a finite element analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015;103(6):1312–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Partridge S, et al. Evaluation of a new methodology to simulate damage and wear of polyethylene hip replacements subjected to edge loading in hip simulator testing. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liao Y-S, et al. The effect of frictional heating and forced cooling on the serum lubricant and wear of UHMW polyethylene cups against cobalt-chromium and zirconia balls. Biomaterials. 2003;24(18):3047–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fitzpatrick CK, et al. Validation of a new computational 6-DOF knee simulator during dynamic activities. J Biomech. 2016;49(14):3177–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePuy Synthes Joint ReconstructionWarsawUSA

Personalised recommendations