| Literature DB >> 28107468 |
Saverio Affatato1, Filippo Zanini2, Simone Carmignato2.
Abstract
More than 60.000 hip arthroplasty are performed every year in Italy. Although Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight-Polyethylene remains the most used material as acetabular cup, wear of this material induces over time in vivo a foreign-body response and consequently osteolysis, pain, and the need of implant revision. Furthermore, oxidative wear of the polyethylene provoke several and severe failures. To solve these problems, highly cross-linked polyethylene and Vitamin-E-stabilized polyethylene were introduced in the last years. In in vitro experiments, various efforts have been made to compare the wear behavior of standard PE and vitamin-E infused liners. In this study we compared the in vitro wear behavior of two different configurations of cross-linked polyethylene (with and without the add of Vitamin E) vs. the standard polyethylene acetabular cups. The aim of the present study was to validate a micro X-ray computed tomography technique to assess the wear of different commercially available, polyethylene's acetabular cups after wear simulation; in particular, the gravimetric method was used to provide reference wear values. The agreement between the two methods is documented in this paper.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28107468 PMCID: PMC5249200 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Weight loss ± Standard deviation of all specimens tested at two millions of cycles.
| Mean ± Standard deviation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycles [Mc] | STD_PE | XLPE | XLPE_VE | K-W test ( |
| 4.0 ±0.4 | 2.1 ±0.6 | 4.0 ±0.3 | 0.066 | |
| 8.0 ±1.2 | 3.7 ±1.3 | 7.1 ±0.5 | 0.051 | |
| 13.2 ±1.7 | 5.8 ±1.2 | 13.6 ±2.1 | 0.066 | |
| 17.4 ±1.2 | 8.1 ±2.1 | 20.6 ±3.9 | 0.051 | |
| 21.3 ±14.4 | 10.2 ±2.1 | 28.2 ±4.0 | 0.252 | |
Comparison of gravimetric and CT wear measurements for specimens tested at 2 Mc.
| Weight loss (mg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Acetabular cup | CT | Gravimetric | Difference |
| 2.97 | 5.40 | -2.42 | |
| 4.91 | 6.86 | -1.95 | |
| 9.83 | 9.51 | 0.32 | |
| 23.26 | 20.37 | 2.89 | |
| 21.38 | 23.06 | -1.69 | |
| 19.24 | 17.77 | 1.47 | |
| 21.89 | 23.94 | -2.06 | |
| 13.79 | 16.43 | -2.64 | |
| 15.04 | 18.41 | -3.37 | |