11.07.2015 Views

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

motion is separated from <strong>the</strong> transverse rotational motion onto two separate articulatingsurfaces, thus less cross-paths and less wear. Such expectations may have dominated <strong>the</strong>thinking and perhaps even clouded <strong>the</strong> expectations <strong>of</strong> TKR wear test engineers. Such wearreduction however has not really been categorically proven clinically.This paper combines in-vitro wear results from two separate laboratories, one in Nebraska USAand one in Germany. These two (industrially unattached labs) possess between <strong>the</strong>m a verylarge set <strong>of</strong> in-vitro wear testing results across <strong>the</strong> widest variety <strong>of</strong> fixed and mobile bearingTKR designs. Fortunately, <strong>the</strong> wear testing methodology using <strong>the</strong> force-control regime used in<strong>the</strong> two labs was largely similar, and was highly consistent within each lab. The fixed and <strong>the</strong>mobile bearings were subjected to <strong>the</strong> exact same force fields, allowing <strong>the</strong>ir Anterior-Posteriortranslation and internal-external rotation kinematics to vary based on <strong>the</strong> individual TKRdesign.Tens <strong>of</strong> implant designs have been tested, both fixed and mobile, in total (bycondylar) form andunicompartmental, <strong>of</strong> various sizes. Some mobile bearings had rotating platforms and somewere rotating-translating. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tests specifically compared mobile to fixed bearing tibialcomponents using identical femoral components. Between both labs, and across all tests, nostatistically significant difference resulted in wear between fixed and mobile bearings. Yet,such differences did clearly feature with known superior bearing materials (for wear) and o<strong>the</strong>rfavored design features. Also, generally, <strong>the</strong> force-control test methodology has proven highlydiscriminatory in its simulation and measurement <strong>of</strong> wear as a potential clinical failure mode.The take home message to test engineers is to expect <strong>the</strong> wear <strong>of</strong> both mobile and fixedbearings to depend more on <strong>the</strong> detailed design and materials <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TKR than on <strong>the</strong> mobility<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> bearing. The results <strong>of</strong> this study re-confirm <strong>the</strong> need for wear testing to be performedprior to any clinical use on all implant designs, despite seemingly similar predicates or success<strong>of</strong> some mobile bearings.Friday, October 8, 2010, 16:30-17:30Session B15: MIS Techniques in TKAFatigue and Wear Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Partial Femoral and TibialUnicompartmental Cartilage Replacement Knee Components*Hani Haider - University <strong>of</strong> Nebraska Medical Center - Omaha, USAJoel Weisenburger - - ,Scott Sherman - Arthrex, Inc., - Naples, USAJosh Karnes - Arthrex Inc - Naples, USA- - ,*Email: hhaider@unmc.edufile:///E|/<strong>ISTA</strong>2010-Abstracts.htm[12/7/2011 3:15:47 PM]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!