Skip to main content
Log in

A New Method to Make 2-D Wear Measurements Less Sensitive to Projection Differences of Cemented THAs

  • Original Article
  • Hip
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract

Wear curves from individual patients often show unexplained irregular wear curves or impossible values (negative wear). We postulated errors of two-dimensional wear measurements are mainly the result of radiographic projection differences. We tested a new method that makes two-dimensional wear measurements less sensitive for radiograph projection differences of cemented THAs. The measurement errors that occur when radiographically projecting a three-dimensional THA were modeled. Based on the model, we developed a method to reduce the errors, thus approximating three-dimensional linear wear values, which are less sensitive for projection differences. An error analysis was performed by virtually simulating 144 wear measurements under varying conditions with and without application of the correction: the mean absolute error was reduced from 1.8 mm (range, 0–4.51 mm) to 0.11 mm (range, 0–0.27 mm). For clinical validation, radiostereometric analysis was performed on 47 patients to determine the true wear at 1, 2, and 5 years. Subsequently, wear was measured on conventional radiographs with and without the correction: the overall occurrence of errors greater than 0.2 mm was reduced from 35% to 15%. Wear measurements are less sensitive to differences in two-dimensional projection of the THA when using the correction method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2A–B
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackland MK, Bourne WB, Uhthoff HK. Anteversion of the acetabular cup: measurement of angle after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68:409–413.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson JR, Cicek RZ. Silane crosslinked polyethylene for prosthetic applications. II. Creep and wear behaviour and a preliminary moulding test. Biomaterials. 1984;5:326–335.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bankston AB, Cates H, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM. Polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;317:7–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barrack RL, Castro FP Jr, Szuszczewicz ES, Schmalzried TP. Analysis of retrieved uncemented porous-coated acetabular components in patients with and without pelvic osteolysis. Orthopedics. 2002;25:1373–1378; discussion 1378.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bragdon CR, Estok DM, Malchau H, Karrholm J, Yuan X, Bourne R, Veldhoven J, Harris WH. Comparison of two digital radiostereometric analysis methods in the determination of femoral head penetration in a total hip replacement phantom. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:659–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Devane PA, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Hardie RM, Horne JG. Measurement of polyethylene wear in metal-backed acetabular cups. I. Three-dimensional technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:303–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Devane PA, Horne JG. Assessment of polyethylene wear in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;369:59–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dowd JE, Sychterz CJ, Young AM, Engh CA. Characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates: association with and prediction of osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1102–1107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:649–661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hardinge K, Porter ML, Jones PR, Hukins DW, Taylor CJ. Measurement of hip prostheses using image analysis: the Maxima hip technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:724–728.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huber J, Walter A, Plitz W, Refior HJ. [Effect of the manufacturing process on creep and wear properties of UHMWPE (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene)] (in German). Biomed Tech (Berl). 1995;40:88–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hui AJ, McCalden RW, Martell JM, MacDonald SJ, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. Validation of two and three-dimensional radiographic techniques for measuring polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:505–511.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ilchmann T. Radiographic assessment of cup migration and wear after hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1997;276:1–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones PR, Taylor CJ, Hukins DW, Porter ML, Hardinge K. Prosthetic hip failure: retrospective radiograph image analysis of the acetabular cup. J Biomed Eng. 1989;11:253–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kadoya Y, Kobayashi A, Ohashi H. Wear and osteolysis in total joint replacements. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1998;278:1–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Karrholm J, Herberts P, Hultmark P, Malchau H, Nivbrant B, Thanner J. Radiostereometry of hip prostheses: review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:94–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Looney RJ, Boyd A, Totterman S, Seo GS, Tamez-Pena J, Campbell D, Novotny L, Olcott C, Martell J, Hayes FA, O’Keefe RJ, Schwarz EM. Volumetric computerized tomography as a measurement of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis and its correlation with wear. Arthritis Res. 2002;4:59–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maloney WJ, Schmalzried T, Harris WH. Analysis of long-term cemented total hip arthroplasty retrievals. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:70–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Martell JM, Berdia S. Determination of polyethylene wear in total hip replacements with use of digital radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1635–1641.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Martell JM, Berkson E, Berger R, Jacobs J. Comparison of two and three-dimensional computerized polyethylene wear analysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1111–1117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McDonald MD, Bloebaum RD. Distinguishing wear and creep in clinically retrieved polyethylene inserts. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995;29:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ostgaard SE, Gottlieb L, Toksvig-Larsen S, Lebech A, Talbot A, Lund B. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis using computer-based image-analysis. J Biomech. 1997;30:993–995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pedersen DR, Brown TD, Hillis SL, Callaghan JJ. Prediction of long-term polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty, based on early wear measurements made using digital image analysis. J Orthop Res. 1998;16:557–563.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips NJ, Stockley I, Wilkinson JM. Direct plain radiographic methods versus EBRA-digital for measuring implant migration after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:917–925.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Selvik G. Roentgen stereophotogrammetry: a method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1989;232:1–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sethi RK, Neavyn MJ, Rubash HE, Shanbhag AS. Macrophage response to cross-linked and conventional UHMWPE. Biomaterials. 2003;24:2561–2573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shaver SM, Brown TD, Hillis SL, Callaghan JJ. Digital edge-detection measurement of polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:690–700.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sychterz CJ, Yang AM, McAuley JP, Engh CA. Two-dimensional versus three-dimensional radiographic measurements of polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;365:117–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. The B, Mol L, Diercks RL, Ooijen PM, Verdonschot N. Correction of error in two-dimensional wear measurements of cemented hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:180–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Valstar ER, Vrooman HA, Toksvig-Larsen S, Ryd L, Nelissen RG. Digital automated RSA compared to manually operated RSA. J Biomech. 2000;33:1593–1599.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bertram The MD.

Additional information

One or more authors (BT) have received funding from Biomet NL (Dordrecht, The Netherlands).

Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved or waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

The correction method uses the underlying mechanism of differences in 2-D projected distances with varying positions of two objects in space to construct a 3-D linear wear approximation [17]. The following formula is used for correction of the raw wear measurement assuming the second radiograph to be the true plane of wear:

$$ {\text{corrected wear}} = {\text{v1}} \times {\text{cosine}}{\text{ }}{\upbeta}/{\text{cosine}}{\text{ }}\upalpha - {\text{v2}} $$

where v1 is the distance between the two reference points on the first (direct postoperative) radiograph, v2 is the distance between the reference points on the second radiograph, α is the opening angle of the cup on the first radiograph, and β is the opening angle of the cup on the second radiograph used for the wear measurement. The opening angles are calculated with the following formula: opening angle = arcsine (minor axis/major axis).

This formula should be applied to the vectoral component of wear occurring perpendicular to the long axis of the projected metal contrast wire. The component of wear occurring parallel to this axis should not be changed. The total linear wear is then calculated by taking the square root of the sums of the quadratic values of the adjusted vector perpendicular to the major axis and the unadjusted vector parallel to the major axis of the ellipse.

About this article

Cite this article

The, B., Flivik, G., Diercks, R.L. et al. A New Method to Make 2-D Wear Measurements Less Sensitive to Projection Differences of Cemented THAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466, 684–690 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0077-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-007-0077-3

Keywords

Navigation