Literature DB >> 19427754

Analysis of wear in retrieved mobile and fixed bearing knee inserts.

Gerard A Engh1, Rebecca L Zimmerman, Nancy L Parks, C Anderson Engh.   

Abstract

One purported advantage for mobile bearing (MB) knee implants is reduced polyethylene wear. Twenty-three retrieved Low Contact Stress (LCS) MB and 31 Anatomic Modular Knee (AMK) fixed bearing tibial polyethylene inserts, both Enduron (Depuy, Warsaw, IN) and sterilized by gas plasma, were graded for top and backside wear using the Hood grading system. For articular surface wear, there was no statistical difference between pitting and scratching, but burnishing was twice as much for MB inserts (P = .003). For backside scores, there was a minimal amount of pitting for both, but the scratching score was twice (P = .000) and the burnishing score was 3 times greater for MB inserts (P = .000). At more than 5 years in situ, the linear wear measurements were similar for the 2 groups (mean penetration was 0.329 mm for MB and 0.320 mm for fixed bearing).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19427754     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  13 in total

1.  Knee wear measured in retrievals: a polished tray reduces insert wear.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; John H Currier; Michael B Mayor; John P Collier
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  The 2012 Mark Coventry award: a retrieval analysis of high flexion versus posterior-stabilized tibial inserts.

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

3.  Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA.

Authors:  Natalie H Kelly; Rose H Fu; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Wear testing of a DJOA finger prosthesis in vitro.

Authors:  Thomas J Joyce
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2010-02-11       Impact factor: 3.896

5.  Rotating-platform has no surface damage advantage over fixed-bearing TKA.

Authors:  Kirsten Stoner; Seth A Jerabek; Stephanie Tow; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Can microcomputed tomography measure retrieved polyethylene wear? Comparing fixed-bearing and rotating-platform knees.

Authors:  Charles A Engh; Rebecca L Zimmerman; Robert H Hopper; Gerard A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Relationship of surface damage appearance and volumetric wear in retrieved TKR polyethylene liners.

Authors:  Christopher B Knowlton; Priyanka Bhutani; Markus A Wimmer
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.368

8.  Does increased topside conformity in modular total knee arthroplasty lead to increased backside wear?

Authors:  Ran Schwarzkopf; Richard D Scott; Evan M Carlson; John H Currier
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Comparison of ultra-congruent mobile- and fixed-bearing navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty with minimum 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  Seong Hwan Kim; Jung-Won Lim; Young-Bong Ko; Min-Gu Song; Han-Jun Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  In vivo kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending motion.

Authors:  Xiaojun Shi; Bin Shen; Jing Yang; Pengde Kang; Zongke Zhou; Fuxing Pei
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.