The effect of oxidative aging on the wear performance of highly crosslinked polyethylene knee inserts under conditions of severe malalignment

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 26, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1585-1590

  Hermida, Juan C ^a   Fischler, Andrew ^a   Colwell Jr , Clifford W ^a   D'Lima, Darryl D ^a  

^a SCRIPPS CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

Crosslinked polyetheylene; Malalignment; Polyetheylene; Total knee arthroplasty; Wear

Indexed keywords

FREE RADICAL; ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT POLYETHYLENE;

AGING; ARTICLE; CROSS LINKING; ELECTRON BEAM; GAMMA IRRADIATION; GAMMA RADIATION; KNEE PROSTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; OXIDATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REMELTING; SEQUENTIALLY CROSSLINKED; SIMULATION; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MATERIALS TESTING; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; POLYETHYLENE; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PROSTHESIS FITTING;

EID: 56749107318     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20686     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, et al. 2002. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7-13.
2. McKellop HA, Shen FW, Campbell P, et al. 1999. Effect of molecular weight, calcium stearate, and sterilization methods on the wear of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene acetabular cups in a hip joint simulator. J Orthop Res 17:329-339.
3. D'Lima DD, Hermida JC, Chen PC, et al. 2003. Polyethylene cross-linking by two different methods reduces acetabular liner wear in a hip joint wear simulator. J Orthop Res 21:761-766.
4. Dorr LD, Wan Z, Shahrdar C, et al. 2005. Clinical performance of a Durasul highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner for total hip arthroplasty at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1816-1821.
5. Heisel C, Silva M, dela Rosa MA, et al. 2004. Short-term in vivo wear of cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:748-751.
6. Krushell RJ, Fingeroth RJ, Cushing MC. 2005. Early femoral head penetration of a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner vs a conventional polyethylene liner: a case-controlled study. J. Arthroplasty 20:73-76.
7. Manning DW, Chiang PP, Martell JM, et al. 2005. In vivo comparative wear study of traditional and highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:880-886.
8. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O'Connor DO, et al. 2001. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. J Arthroplasty 16:149-160.
9. Wang A, Zeng H, Yau S-S, et al. 2006. Wear, oxidation and mechanical properties of a sequentially irradiated and annealed UHMWPE in total joint replacement. J Phys D: Appl Phys 39:3213-3219.
10. Pruitt LA. 2005. Deformation, yielding, fracture and fatigue behavior of conventional and highly cross-linked ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. Biomaterials 26:905-915.
11. Oral E, Wannomae KK, Hawkins N, et al. 2004. Alpha-tocopherol-doped irradiated UHMWPE for high fatigue resistance and low wear. Biomaterials 25:5515-5522.
12. Collier JP, Currier BH, Kennedy FE, et al. 2003. Comparison of cross-linked polyethylene materials for orthopaedic applications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 414:289-304.
13. Gencur SJ, Rimnac CM, Kurtz SM. 2006. Fatigue crack propagation resistance of virgin and highly crosslinked, thermally treated ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Biomaterials 27:1550-1557.
14. Kurtz SM, Mazzucco D, Rimnac CM, et al. 2006. Anisotropy and oxidative resistance of highly crosslinked UHMWPE after deformation processing by solid-state ram extrusion. Biomaterials 27:24-34.
15. Dumbleton JH, D'Antonio JA, Manley MT, et al. 2006. The basis for a second-generation highly cross-linked UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:265-271.
16. D'Lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell CW Jr. 2001. Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity and knee alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:232-238.
17. Windsor RE, Scuderi GR, Moran MC, et al. 1989. Mechanisms of failure of the femoral and tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:15-19.
18. Feng EL, Stulberg SD, Wixson RL. 1994. Progressive subluxation and polyethylene wear in total knee replacements with flat articular surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res 299:60-71.
19. D'Lima DD, Hermida JC, Chen PC, et al. 2001. Polyethylene wear and variations in knee kinematics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:124-130.
20. Hernigou P, Deschamps G. 2004. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161-165.
21. Dorr LD, Boiardo RA. 1986. Technical considerations in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205:5-11.
22. Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, et al. 1999. Changes in knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14:566-570.
23. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, et al. 2004. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26-34.
24. Nabeyama R, Matsuda S, Miura H, et al. 2004. The accuracy of image-guided knee replacement based on computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:366-371.
25. Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, et al. 2003. Positioning;1; of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:830-835.
26. Jenny JY, Boeri C. 2001. Computer-assisted implantation of total knee prostheses: a case-control comparative study with classical instrumentation. Comput Aided Surg 6:217-220.
27. Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kurosaka M, et al. 2004. Prosthetic alignment and sizing in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28:282-285.
28. Haaker RG, Stockheim M, Kamp M, et al. 2005. Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 433:152-159.
29. David Stulberg S. 2003. How accurate is current TKR instrumentation? Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:177-184.
30. Historical standard. 2007. F2003-00 Standard guide for accelerated aging of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
31. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, et al. 2004. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:372-377.
32. International Standards Organization. 2004. International Standard, ISO 14243-3; Implants for surgery - wear of total knee-joint prostheses, Part 3: loading and desplacement parameters for wear-testing machine with displacement control and corresponding environmental conditions for test. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.
33. Collier JP, Sperling DK, Currier JH, et al. 1996. Impact of gamma sterilization on clinical performance of polyethylene in the knee. J Arthroplasty 11:377-389.
34. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, Jasty M, et al. 2004. Kneesimulator testing of conventional and cross-linked polyethylene tibial inserts. J Arthroplasty 19:887-897.
35. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O'Connor DO, et al. 2002. Aggressive wear testing of a cross-linked polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:89-95.
36. McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, et al. 1999. Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res 17:157-167.
37. Yau SS, Wang A, Essner A, et al. 2005. Sequential irradiation and annealing of highly crosslinked polyethylenes: resist oxidation without sacrificing physical/mechanical properties. Trans 51st Orthop Res Soc 30.
38. Mazzucco DC, Dumbleton J, Kurtz SM. 2006. Can accelerated aqueous aging simulate in vivo oxidation of gamma-sterilized UHMWPE? J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 79:79-85.
39. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CW Jr, et al. 1998. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:47-57.