Characterisation of Vitamin E–Blended UHMWPE for Higher In Vivo Performance in Orthopaedic Arthroplasty

  • Luigi CostaEmail author
  • Marco Regis
  • Pierangiola Bracco
  • Luca Giorgini
  • Simonetta Fusi


State-of-the-art cross-linked UHMWPE and recent findings about UHMWPE oxidation from in vivo stresses lead to the need of a better understanding of why anti-oxidant additives have to be added in orthopaedics and which anti-oxidant additivation method is the best option for the use in joint replacements. A GUR 1020 cross-linked vitamin E–blended UHMWPE has been investigated to provide an accurate outline of its properties.

DSC and FTIR measurements, together with ageing and tensile tests, were performed on compression-moulded blocks, as well as biocompatibility tests, including implantation on rabbits. Moreover, wear simulations on finished components (Delta acetabular liners, LimaCorporate, Italy) have been completed.

All the test procedures have been repeated for a reference material, a GUR 1050 cross-linked and remelted standard UHMWPE (UHMWPE X-Lima, LimaCorporate, Italy), and the outcomes have been compared to the cross-linked vitamin E–blended UHMWPE ones.

On the additivated UHMWPE, we found an ultimate tensile strength of 43 MPa, a yield strength value of 25 MPa and an elongation to breakage equal to 320%. The degree of crystallinity was 45 ± 2%, and no signal of creation of oxidation products was detected up to 2,000 h of permanence in oxidant ambient after the ageing test. The reference material showed lower mechanical resistance values (σ* = 33 MPa, σ y = 19 MPa, 305% elongation), a crystallinity of 46 ± 2% and the creation of oxidation products starting from 700 h in O2 ambient. The biocompatibility tests indicate that the additivated material is biocompatible, as the reference X-Lima UHMWPE.

Wear tests gave a wear rate of 5.12 mg/million cycles against 6.13 mg/million cycles of the reference material and no sign of run-in wear rate.

Our results indicate that there is a loss in mechanical properties in the reference material due to the post-irradiation thermal treatment. DSC measurements instead show no change in crystallinity between the additivated UHMWPE and the reference material. The blend between polymer and additive assures a uniform concentration of vitamin E across the whole thickness of the moulded block, and ageing test results on additivated UHMWPE have shown that the material possesses a superior resistance to degradation phenomena.

Biocompatibility assesses that the presence of vitamin E is not detrimental for the in vivo use of the material, and wear results indicate a better wear resistance of the material, especially in the first stages of the wear process.

From these considerations, it can be concluded that the choice of a vitamin E–blended material, in respect to the standard cross-linked UHMWPE, is highly resistant to oxidation phenomena and retains the mechanical properties thanks to the absence of a post-irradiation thermal treatment; therefore, it is expected to have superior in vivo endurance performance.


Wear Rate Oxidation Level Accelerate Ageing Test Blended Material Biocompatibility Test 
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.


  1.  1.
    ASTM International (2002) ASTM F2003–02. Standard practice for accelerated aging of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene after gamma irradiation in air. West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2.  2.
    ASTM International (2010) ASTM D638–10. Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics. West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  3.  3.
    ASTM International (2007) ASTM F648–07. Standard specification for ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene powder and fabricated form for surgical implants. West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4.  4.
    ASTM International (2007) ASTM F2695–07. Standard specification for ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene powder blended with alpha-Tocopherol (Vitamin E) and fabricated forms for surgical implant applications. West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5.  5.
    Bhateja S, Duerst R, Aus E et al (1995) Free radicals trapped in polyethylene crystals. J Macromol Sci Phys B34:263–272Google Scholar
  6.  6.
    Blundell DJ, Beckett DH, Wilcocks PH (1981) Routine crystallinity measurements of polymers by DSC. Polymer 22:704–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7.  7.
    Blunn G, Brach del Prever EM, Costa L et al (2002) Ultra high molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in joint replacement: fabrication, sterilisation and wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:946–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8.  8.
    Bracco P, Oral E (2011) Vitamin E-stabilized UHMWPE for total joint implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2286–2293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9.  9.
    Bracco P, Brunella V, Zanetti M et al (2007) Stabilisation of UHMWPE with vitamin E. Polym Degrad Stab 92:2155–2162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costa L, Bracco P (2009) Mechanisms of crosslinking, oxidative degradation and stabilization of UHMWPE. In: Kurtz SM (ed) The UHMWPE biomaterials handbook, 2nd edn. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Costa L, Brach del Prever EM (2000) UMWPE for arthroplasty. Minerva Medica, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L (1997) Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. I. Mechano-oxidative degradation. Polym Degrad Stab 55:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L (1997) Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. II. Thermal- and photo-oxidation. Polym Degrad Stab 58:41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L et al (1998) Oxidation in orthopaedic UHMWPE sterilized by gamma radiation and ethylene oxide. Biomaterials 19:659–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costa L, Luda MP, Trossarelli L et al (1998) In vivo UHMWPE biodegradation of retrieved prosthesis. Biomaterials 19:1371–1385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costa L, Jacobson K, Bracco P et al (2002) Oxidation of orthopaedic UHMWPE. Biomaterials 23:1613–1624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gencur SJ, Rimnac CM, Kurtz SM (2006) Fatigue crack propagation resistance of virgin and highly crosslinked thermally treated UHMWPE. Biomaterials 27:1550–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gray P (1970) Polymer crystallinity determination by DSC. Thermochimica Acta 1:563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris W (1995) The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 311:46–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hermida JC, Bergula A, Chen P et al (2003) Comparison of the wear rates of twenty-eight and thirty-two-millimeter femoral heads on cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cups in a wear simulator. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:2325–2331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Organisation for Standardisation (1997) UNI EN ISO 527–2. Determination of tensile properties test conditions for moulding and extrusion plastics. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    International Organisation for Standardisation (2002) ISO 14242. Implants for surgery – wear of total hip-joint prostheses. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    International Organisation for Standardisation (2009) ISO 10993. Biological evaluation of medical devices. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keller A, Ungar G (1983) Radiation effects and crystallinity in polyethylene. J Phys Chem 22:155–181Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marshall A (2011) Effect of UHMWPE particles on mesenchymal stem cell replication. In: Proceedings of 5th UHMWPE international meeting, Philadelphia, 22–23 Sept 2011Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B et al (2000) 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 82:1708–1725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Oral E, Wannomae KK, Hawkins NE et al (2004) α-Tocopherol doped irradiated UHMWPE for high fatigue resistance and low wear. Biomaterials 25:5515–5522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oral E, Greenbaum ES, Malhi AS et al (2005) Characterization of irradiated blends of alpha-tocopherol and UHMWPE. Biomaterials 26:6657–6663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oral E, Christensen S, Malhi A et al (2006) Wear resistance and mechanical properties of highly crosslinked UHMWPE doped with vitamin E. J Arthroplasty 21:580–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oral E, Rowell SL, Muratoglu OK (2006) The effect of α-tocopherol on the oxidation and free radical decay in irradiated UHMWPE. Biomaterials 27:5580–5587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oral E, Wannomae KK, Rowell SL et al (2007) Diffusion of vitamin E in ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Biomaterials 28:5225–5237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oral E, Godesky Beckos C, Malhi A et al (2008) The effects of high dose irradiation on the cross-linking of vitamin E-blended UHMWPE. Biomaterials 29:3557–3560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parth M, Aust N, Lederer K (2002) Studies on the effect of electron beam irradiation on the molecular structure of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene under the influence of alpha-tocopherol with respect to its application in medical implants. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13:917–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Regis M, Bracco P, Giorgini L et al (2012) J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomat (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EFORT 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luigi Costa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Regis
    • 2
  • Pierangiola Bracco
    • 1
  • Luca Giorgini
    • 3
  • Simonetta Fusi
    • 2
  1. 1.IFM Chemistry DepartmentTorino UniversityTorinoItaly
  2. 2.R&D DepartmentLimaCorporate SpAUdineItaly
  3. 3.Hip DivisionLimaCorporate SpAUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations