Literature DB >> 24608233

Metal-on-metal vs. metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty tribological evaluation of retrieved components and periprosthetic tissue.

Matevž Topolovec1, Andrej Cör2, Ingrid Milošev3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings were introduced as an alternative to conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings to reduce the wear and to increase the survival of hip prostheses. The goal of the present study was to compare tribological properties and to evaluate periprosthetic tissue reaction in two identical groups of prostheses differing only in the type of bearings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At revision operations 26 MoM and 12 MoP bearing components and perisprosthetic tissue samples were collected. Prosthetic components were used to assess wear damage, linear and volumetric wear and roughness. Periprosthetic tissue samples were used for histological as well as immunohistochemical analysis and isolation and characterization of wear particles.
RESULTS: The mean linear wear rate in the MoM group was 2.34 (SD 1.93)μm/year, significantly lower than the value in the MoP group, 11.52 (SD 7.82)μm/year. Significantly lower was also the volumetric wear, 0.19 (SD 0.32)mm(3)/year for MoM compared to 0.98 (SD 0.78)mm(3)/year for MoP. In both groups the main wear mode was abrasive wear. Histological results for MoM group indicate more lymphocyte dominated periprosthetic tissue reaction compared to MoP group. The mean size of polyethylene particles in the MoP group was 0.21 (SD 0.44)µm. In the MoM nanosized CoCrMo particles were identified. The characterization of metal particles was complex and required special attention in terms of instrumentation (field emission scanning electron microscopy in back-scattered mode); otherwise it was difficult to distinguish metal particles from other particles in the tissue.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significantly lower wear and, consequently, smaller load of periprosthetic tissue with wear particles in the MoM group, the tissue reaction was similar, if not more intense than in the MoP group.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24608233     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.02.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater        ISSN: 1878-0180


  5 in total

1.  Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: is there still a role in 2016?

Authors:  Edward J Silverman; Blair Ashley; Neil P Sheth
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

2.  Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings total hip arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Tao Wang; Jun-Ying Sun; Xi-Jiang Zhao; Yong Liu; Hai-Bo Yin
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2016-08-25

3.  Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup.

Authors:  Naoki Nakano; Andrea Volpin; Jonathan Bartlett; Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.251

4.  Femoral head disengagement from Accolade femoral stem in MOM Arthroplasty: a case study and literature review.

Authors:  Mohamed F H Elsheikh; Rehan Gul
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2019-08-20

5.  Mixed material wear particle isolation from periprosthetic tissue surrounding total joint replacements.

Authors:  Ashley A Stratton-Powell; Sophie Williams; Joanne L Tipper; Anthony C Redmond; Claire L Brockett
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.405

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.