BACKGROUND: With extensive use of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty implants, it is increasingly important to assess the mechanical performance of this design alternative. The purpose of this study was to examine the wear patterns at the femoral cam-tibial post interface in a series of posterior stabilized prostheses retrieved at revision arthroplasty. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative wear analysis was performed over the surface of the stabilizing posts from twenty-three retrieved total knee components that had been implanted for a mean of 35.6 months (range, 2.3 to 107.2 months). The implants were designs from four different manufacturers. Digital images of the anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral surfaces of the tibial post were made for quantitative analysis and determination of a post wear score. Wear was characterized with a grading system that isolates adhesive, abrasive, and fatigue wear, inferring a weighted score from an estimation of generated polyethylene debris. RESULTS: Evidence of wear or damage was observed on all twenty-three of the stabilizing posts, including those revised because of infection. On the average, 39.9% (range, 18.5% to 60%) of the post surface demonstrated some form of deformation, with adhesive wear, or burnishing, being the predominant wear mechanism. Seven posts (30%) exhibited severe damage with gross loss of polyethylene. The wear caused premature failure and early revision of two components: one of these failures was related to isolated post wear and the other, to severe post wear and subsequent fracture. Overall, wear was primarily posterior, but wear over the anterior, medial, and lateral surfaces was also notable. CONCLUSIONS: The cam-post articulation in posterior stabilized implants can be an additional source of polyethylene wear debris. The variability in wear patterns observed among designs may be due to differences in cam-post mechanics, post location, and post geometry. The surgeon should be aware that the cam-post interface is not an innocuous articulation, and manufacturers should be motivated to produce implants that maintain the function of the post while limiting wear and surface damage.
BACKGROUND: With extensive use of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty implants, it is increasingly important to assess the mechanical performance of this design alternative. The purpose of this study was to examine the wear patterns at the femoral cam-tibial post interface in a series of posterior stabilized prostheses retrieved at revision arthroplasty. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative wear analysis was performed over the surface of the stabilizing posts from twenty-three retrieved total knee components that had been implanted for a mean of 35.6 months (range, 2.3 to 107.2 months). The implants were designs from four different manufacturers. Digital images of the anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral surfaces of the tibial post were made for quantitative analysis and determination of a post wear score. Wear was characterized with a grading system that isolates adhesive, abrasive, and fatigue wear, inferring a weighted score from an estimation of generated polyethylene debris. RESULTS: Evidence of wear or damage was observed on all twenty-three of the stabilizing posts, including those revised because of infection. On the average, 39.9% (range, 18.5% to 60%) of the post surface demonstrated some form of deformation, with adhesive wear, or burnishing, being the predominant wear mechanism. Seven posts (30%) exhibited severe damage with gross loss of polyethylene. The wear caused premature failure and early revision of two components: one of these failures was related to isolated post wear and the other, to severe post wear and subsequent fracture. Overall, wear was primarily posterior, but wear over the anterior, medial, and lateral surfaces was also notable. CONCLUSIONS: The cam-post articulation in posterior stabilized implants can be an additional source of polyethylene wear debris. The variability in wear patterns observed among designs may be due to differences in cam-post mechanics, post location, and post geometry. The surgeon should be aware that the cam-post interface is not an innocuous articulation, and manufacturers should be motivated to produce implants that maintain the function of the post while limiting wear and surface damage.
Authors: Markus A Wimmer; Michel P Laurent; Jeannie D Haman; Joshua J Jacobs; Jorge O Galante Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Nicholas R Paterson; Matthew G Teeter; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Douglas D R Naudie Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Mark M Dolan; Natalie H Kelly; Joseph T Nguyen; Timothy M Wright; Steven B Haas Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Philip M Faris; E Michael Keating; Alex Farris; John B Meding; Merrill A Ritter Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Bridgette D Furman; Joseph Lipman; Mordechai Kligman; Timothy M Wright; Steven B Haas Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 4.176