In vitro wear assessment of the charité artificial disc according to ASTM recommendations

Spine

Volumn 31, Issue 17, 2006, Pages 1900-1910

  Serhan, Hassan A ^a   Dooris, Andrew P ^a   Parsons, Matthew L ^a   Ares, Paul J ^a   Gabriel, Stefan M ^a  

^a Synthes Technical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial disc; Biomechanics; Lumbar; Wear

Indexed keywords

ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE;

ABSORPTION; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; BIOMECHANICS; COMPRESSION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; OSTEOLYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE;

EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; MATERIALS TESTING; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; PARTICLE SIZE; POLYETHYLENES; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS;

EID: 33748043654     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000228716.60863.ab     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Hirakawa K, Jacobs JJ, Urban R, et al. Mechanisms of failure of total hip replacements: lessons learned from retrieval studies. Clin Orthop 2004;420:10-7.
2. Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA. Skeletal Tissue Mechanics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
3. Hedman TP, Kostuik JP, Fernie GR, et al. Design of an intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine 1991;16(suppl):256-60.
4. American Society of Testing and Materials. International. Standard Test Method for the Functional and Kinematic Wear Assessment of Total Disc Prostheses [F04.25]. Spinal Devices Subcommittee, Draft 2, 2003.
5. Bragdon CR, Jasty M, Muratoglu OK, et al. Third-body wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene in a hip simulator. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:553-61.
6. Bragdon CR, O'Connor DO, Lowenstein JD, et al. The importance of multidirectional motion on the wear of polyethylene. Proc Mech Eng H 1996;210:157-66.
7. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 1990.
8. McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, et al. Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res 1999;17:157-67.
9. Hall RM, Siney P, Unsworth A, et al. The association between rates of wear in retrieved acetabular components and the radius of the femoral head. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1998;212:321-6.
10. International Organization for Standardization. ISO TC150/SC5/N350: Implants for surgery - Wear of total intervertebral spinal disc prostheses: Part 1. Loading and Displacement Parameters for Wear Testing and Corresponding Environmental Conditions for Tests. International Organization for Standardization 2004.
11. Tawackoli W, Liebschner MA. Analysis of the 360 degree motion envelope of human lumbosacral joints. 51st Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Washington, DC, 2005:1266.
12. Center of Devices and Radiological Health [DoHaHS P040006b]. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness [Food and Drug Administration.], 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/PDF4/p040006b.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2005, May 20, 2005.
13. Stewart T, Tipper J, Streicher R, et al. Long-term wear of HIPed alumina on alumina bearings for THR under microseparation conditions. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001;12:1053-6.
14. Williams S, Butterfield M, Stewart T, et al. Wear and deformation of ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip replacements with joint laxity and swing phase microseparation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2003;217:147-53.
15. Wilke HJ, Neef P, Caimi M, et al. New in vivo measurements of pressures in the intervertebral disc in daily life. Spine 1999;24:755-62.
16. Nachemson AL. Disc pressure measurements. Spine 1981;6:93-7.
17. Kurtz SM, Peloza J, Siskey R, et al. Analysis of a retrieved polyethylene total disc replacement component. Spine J 2005;5:344-50.
18. Chan F. Is unidirectional motion wear testing appropriate for total disc replacement implants? Spine Arthroplasty Society, New York, 2005.
19. McAfee PC, Cunningham B, Holsapple G, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: II. Evaluation of radiographic outcomes and correlation of surgical technique accuracy with clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1576-83.
20. Scott-Young M. Revision strategies for lumbar total disc replacement. Spine Arthroplasty Society, New York, 2005.
21. Heisel C, Silva M, dela Rosa MA, et al. Short-term in vivo wear of cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:748-51.
22. Bushelow M. Wear testing of artificial disc replacement prostheses: A comparison between two wear simulation methods. Spine Arthroplasty Society, New York, 2005.
23. Dooris AP. Experimental and theoretical investigations into the effects of artificial disc implantation on the lumbar spine [Thesis]. Biomedical Engineering Department, Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa, 2001.
24. Hellier WG, Hedman TP, Kostuik JP. Wear studies for development of an intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine 1992;17:S86-96.
25. Huber J. Intervertebral Disc Simulator Analysis to Determine the Tribological Properties of the SB Charité Intervertebral Prosthesis. Munich: Laboratory for Biomechanics and Experimental Orthopedics, Orthopedics Clinic, University of Munich, 2000:44.
26. Matthews HH, Eisermann L, LeHuec J-C, et al. An in-vitro biomechanical evaluation of the wear behavior of Maverick Total Disc Replacement. 10th International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques, Rome, 2003:8.
27. Valdevit A, Errico TJ. Design and evaluation of the FlexiCore metal-on-metal intervertebral disc prosthesis. Spine J 2004;4(suppl):276-88.
28. Wirth MA, Agrawal CM, Mabrey JD, et al. Isolation and characterization of polyethylene wear debris associated with osteolysis following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:29-37.
29. Mabrey JD, Afsar-Keshmiri A, Engh GA, et al. Standardized analysis of UHMWPE wear particles from failed total joint arthroplasties. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;63:475-83.
30. Green TR, Fisher J, Matthews JB, et al. Effect of size and dose on bone resorption activity of macrophages by in vitro clinically relevant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene particles. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:490-7.
31. Green TR, Fisher J, Stone M, et al. Polyethylene particles of a 'critical size' are necessary for the induction of cytokines by macrophages in vitro. Biomaterials 1998;19:2297-302.
32. Kobayashi A, Freeman MA, Bonfield W, et al. Number of polyethylene particles and osteolysis in total joint replacements: a quantitative study using a tissue-digestion method. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:844-8.
33. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:649-61.
34. Oparaugo PC, Clarke IC, Malchau H, et al. Correlation of wear debris-induced osteolysis and revision with volumetric wear-rates of polyethylene: a survey of 8 reports in the literature. Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72:22-8.
35. Orishimo KF, Claus AM, Sychterz CJ, et al. Relationship between polyethylene wear and osteolysis in hips with a second-generation porous-coated cementless cup after seven years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1095-9.
36. Cunningham BW. Basic scientific considerations in total disc arthroplasty. Spine J 2004;4(suppl):219-30.
37. Lemaire JP, Carrier H, Sariali el-H, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the CHARITÉ Artificial Disc: 10 year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005;18:353-9.
38. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: I. Evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 2005;30:1565-75.
39. Licina P, Thorpe P. Osteolysis and complications associated with artificial disc replacement. Spine Society of Australia, Coolum, Queens Land, Australia, April 23-25, 2004.
40. Bargmann LS, Bargmann BC, Collier JP, et al. Current sterilization and packaging methods for polyethylene. Clin Orthop 1999;369:49-58.
41. Buchanan FJ, Sim B, Downes S. Influence of packaging conditions on the properties of gamma-irradiated UHMWPE following accelerated ageing and shelf ageing. Biomaterials 1999;20:823-37.
42. Hermida JC, Bergula A, Chen P, et al. Comparison of the wear rates of twenty-eight and thirty-two-millimeter femoral heads on cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cups in a wear simulator. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:2325-31.
43. McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, et al. Effect of sterilization method and other modifications on the wear resistance of acetabular cups made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: a hip-simulator study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:1708-25.
44. Andriacchi TP, Dyrby CO, Johnson TS. The use of functional analysis in evaluating knee kinematics. Clin Orthop 2003;410:44-53.
45. Benson LC, DesJardins JD, LaBerge M. Effects of in vitro wear of machined and molded UHMWPE tibial inserts on TKR kinematics. J Biomed Mater Res 2001;58:496-504.
46. D'Lima DD, Hermida JC, Chen PC, et al. Polyethylene wear and variations in knee kinematics. Clin Orthop 2001;392:124-30.
47. Walker PS, Blunn GW, Perry JP, et al. Methodology for long-term wear testing of total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 2000;391:290-301.
48. Muratoglu OK, Perinchief RS, Bragdon CR, et al. Metrology to quantify wear and creep of polyethylene tibial knee inserts. Clin Orthop 2003;410:155-64.