BACKGROUND: Cross-linked polyethylene was developed to reduce volumetric wear in prosthetic joints. Hip simulator studies have shown promising results with regard to wear reduction. This study evaluated the short-term in vivo wear of a moderately cross-linked polyethylene. METHODS: Linear head penetration, as an assessment of in vivo polyethylene wear, was measured in two groups of patients after total hip replacement. Twenty-four hips received a conventional polyethylene insert and thirty-four, a cross-linked polyethylene liner; both inserts were manufactured by the same company. Linear and volumetric wear rates were measured on radiographs with use of a validated computer-assisted technique and were adjusted for patient-related factors. Patient activity was assessed by a computerized two-dimensional accelerometer worn on the ankle. RESULTS: Patients with a conventional polyethylene insert showed a mean linear wear rate of 0.13 mm per year and a mean volumetric wear rate of 87.6 mm(3) per year. The group with a cross-linked polyethylene liner showed a mean linear wear rate of 0.02 mm per year and a mean volumetric wear rate of 17.0 mm(3) per year. Wear in the group with cross-linked polyethylene was 81% lower than that in the group with conventional polyethylene (p < 0.00001). Accounting for differences in patient activity, the adjusted wear rates per million cycles for a patient weight of 70 kg were 53 mm(3) per million cycles for conventional polyethylene and 15 mm(3) per million cycles for cross-linked polyethylene, a 72% reduction (p = 0.0002). No factor, other than the type of polyethylene, was found to influence the difference in wear rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are promising. The in vivo wear reduction with this cross-linked polyethylene is consistent with the predictions of hip simulator studies.
BACKGROUND: Cross-linked polyethylene was developed to reduce volumetric wear in prosthetic joints. Hip simulator studies have shown promising results with regard to wear reduction. This study evaluated the short-term in vivo wear of a moderately cross-linked polyethylene. METHODS: Linear head penetration, as an assessment of in vivo polyethylene wear, was measured in two groups of patients after total hip replacement. Twenty-four hips received a conventional polyethylene insert and thirty-four, a cross-linked polyethylene liner; both inserts were manufactured by the same company. Linear and volumetric wear rates were measured on radiographs with use of a validated computer-assisted technique and were adjusted for patient-related factors. Patient activity was assessed by a computerized two-dimensional accelerometer worn on the ankle. RESULTS:Patients with a conventional polyethylene insert showed a mean linear wear rate of 0.13 mm per year and a mean volumetric wear rate of 87.6 mm(3) per year. The group with a cross-linked polyethylene liner showed a mean linear wear rate of 0.02 mm per year and a mean volumetric wear rate of 17.0 mm(3) per year. Wear in the group with cross-linked polyethylene was 81% lower than that in the group with conventional polyethylene (p < 0.00001). Accounting for differences in patient activity, the adjusted wear rates per million cycles for a patient weight of 70 kg were 53 mm(3) per million cycles for conventional polyethylene and 15 mm(3) per million cycles for cross-linked polyethylene, a 72% reduction (p = 0.0002). No factor, other than the type of polyethylene, was found to influence the difference in wear rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are promising. The in vivo wear reduction with this cross-linked polyethylene is consistent with the predictions of hip simulator studies.
Authors: Nathan A Mall; Ryan M Nunley; Jin Jun Zhu; William J Maloney; Robert L Barrack; John C Clohisy Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; William Hozack; Joseph Turner; James Purtill; Daniel MacDonald; Peter Sharkey; Javad Parvizi; Michael Manley; Richard Rothman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Robert H Hopper; Henry Ho; Supatra Sritulanondha; Ann C Williams; Charles A Engh Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Julio J Jauregui; Qais Naziri; Todd P Pierce; Randa K Elmallah; Jeffrey J Cherian; Ronald E Delanois; Michael A Mont Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Derek S Shia; John C Clohisy; Mark F Schinsky; John M Martell; William J Maloney Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Anthony Chyr; Mingfeng Qiu; Jared Speltz; Ronald L Jacobsen; Anthony P Sanders; Bart Raeymaekers Journal: Wear Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.892