0
Scientific Articles   |    
Short-Term in Vivo Wear of Cross-Linked Polyethylene
Christian Heisel, MD1; Mauricio Silva, MD1; Mylene A. dela Rosa, BS1; Thomas P. Schmalzried, MD1
1 Joint Replacement Institute at Orthopaedic Hospital, 2400 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2004; 86:748-751 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

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 mm3 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 mm3 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 mm3 per million cycles for conventional polyethylene and 15 mm3 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.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level II-1 (prospective cohort study). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $30
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    William H. Harris, M.D.
    Posted on May 17, 2004
    Short Term in vivo Wear vs. Creep
    Orthopaedic Biomechanics and Biomaterials Lab., Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114

    To the Editor:

    In a recent article entitled, " Short-term in vivo wear of crosslinked polyethylene space " by Heisel et al., several statements made by the authors prompt some questions.

    The authors report " a mean linear wear rate of 0.13mm per year for conventional polyethylene and a mean linear wear rate of 0.02mm per year for the crosslinked polyethylene ". The method used to quantify the penetration of the femoral head into the polyethylene for both groups was the Martell Method. That method does not, per say, provide data on wear. It provides data only on femoral head penetration.

    The authors acknowledge in the Discussion that creep is an important contributor to penetration, particularly during the first two years. Since the mean follow-up of their conventional polyethelene group was two years and two months, creep must have played an important role in the penetration reported. Still, this penetration is reported as wear.

    It is not possible to quantify wear until a steady state has been established. This study does not establish when steady state penetration is reached nor the time of the cessation of creep as a major factor in penetration. In the absence of that information, it seems unlikely that the authors are justified in using the term mean linear wear rate.

    In addition, reading of penetration of the femoral head into the polyethylene using the Martell Method has a substantial degree of observer sensitivity. These data were all generated by a single observer.

    The standard deviations of the pedometer readings are large, approximately one million cycles per year for each group. With a two million average number of cycles per year, does this imply that some of the outliers were remarkably inactive and others might have taken as many four million steps a year, to be able to include the range of data covering two standard deviations.

    These considerations lead to the single key concern. It would appear that this study is incorrect in using the term mean linear wear rates in reporting the penetration data.

    Sincerely,

    William H. Harris, MD Orthopaedic Biomechanics and Biomaterials Lab Massachusetts General Hospital 55 Fruit Street, GRJ 1126 Boston, MA 02114 617-726-3866 (ph), 617-726-3883 (fax)

    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Hip
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    03/06/2012
    RI - West Bay Orthopaedics and Neurosurgery, Inc.
    05/18/2012
    TX - University of North Texas Health Science Center
    02/16/2012
    MA - Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
    05/18/2012
    NY - SUNY-Downstate Medical Center