| Literature DB >> 28773112 |
Linda Braddon1, Zafer Termanini2, Steven MacDonald3, Jay Parvizi4, Jay Lieberman5, Victor Frankel6, Joseph Zuckerman7.
Abstract
Total hip arthroplasty has been utilized for the past 50 years as an effective treatment for degenerative, inflammatory and traumatic disorders of the hip. The design of these implants has generally followed the anatomy of the hip as a ball and socket joint with the femoral head representing the ball and the acetabulum representing the socket. We describe a novel hip arthroplasty design in which the "ball" is located on the acetabular side and the "socket" is located on the femoral side. The results of extensive biomechanical testing are described and document wear and corrosion characteristics that are at least equivalent to standard designs. These results support clinical assessment as the next step of the evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: corrosion; hip arthroplasty; reverse design; wear debris
Year: 2017 PMID: 28773112 PMCID: PMC5551794 DOI: 10.3390/ma10070751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Hip Innovation Technology (HIT) Hip Replacement System (HRS).
Figure 2Test setup for corrosion evaluation via ISO 7206-6.
Figure 3Tapers visually evaluated for corrosion: Acetabular Taper (a) and Femoral Taper (b).
Figure 4Representative examples of both acetabular and femoral tapers both pre- and post-testing for 10 and 50 million cycles.
Taper disassembly forces after dynamic fatigue testing where 16,000 N of force or greater is indicative of clinically relevant corrosion.
| Condition | Femoral Taper Mean + Standard Deviation (Newtons) | Acetabular Taper Mean + Standard Deviation (Newtons) |
|---|---|---|
| 10 million cycles dynamic fatigue | 12,957 + 1797 | 3429 + 347 |
| 50 million cycles dynamic fatigue | 12,506 + 774 | 4329 + 443 |
Wear generation of the reverse hip system versus two conventional systems under normal and gait separation conditions.
| Acetabular Cup Placement Inclination/ANTEVERSION | Mean Wear Rate (mg/Million Cycle) No Gait Separation for 5 MC | Mean Wear Rate (mg/Million Cycle) 2 mm Gait Separation for 1 MC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIT HRS | DePuy | Zimmer | HIT HRS | DePuy | Zimmer | |
| 45°/0° | 1.60 ± 0.45 ( | Not Tested | Not Tested | 7.03 ± 0.39 No edge wear ( | Not Tested | Not Tested |
| 20°/0° | 1.30 ( | 7.09 ( | 1.67 ( | 6.31 No edge wear ( | 14.63 Slight edge wear ( | 6.31 Slight edge wear ( |
| 70°/0° | 1.71 ( | 6.32 ( | 1.27 ( | 7.08 No edge wear ( | 13.16 Slight edge wear ( | 6.81 Slight edge wear ( |
| 20°/40° | 1.02 ( | Not Tested | Not Tested | 5.71 No edge wear ( | Not Tested | Not Tested |
| 70°/40° | 1.27 ( | Not Tested | Not Tested | 5.76 No edge wear ( | Not Tested | Not Tested |