Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Implant wear testing is traditionally undertaken using standardized inputs set out by ISO or ASTM. These inputs are based on a single individual performing a single activity with a specific implant. Standardization helps ensure that implants are tested to a known set of parameters from which comparisons may be drawn but it has limitations as patients perform varied activities, with different implant sizes and designs that produce different kinematics/kinetics. In this study, wear performance has been evaluated using gait implant specific loading/kinematics and comparing to a combination deep knee bend (DKB), step down (SD) and gait implant specific loading on cruciate retaining (CR) rotating platform (RP) total knee replacements (TKR). This combination activity profile better replicates patient activities of daily living (ADL).
METHODS
Two sets of three ATTUNE® size 5 right leg CR RP TKRs (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) were used in a study to evaluate ADL implant wear. Implant specific loading profiles were produced via a validated finite element lower limb model [1] that uses activity data such as gait (K1L_110108_1_86p), SD (K1L_240309_2_144p), and DKB (K9P_2239_0_9_I1) from the Orthoload database [2] to produce external boundary conditions. Each set of components were tested using a VIVO joint simulator (AMTI, Watertown, MA, Figure 1) for a total of 4.5 million cycles (Mcyc). All cycles were conducted at 0.8Hz in force-control with flexion driven in displacement control. Bovine calf serum lubricant was prepared to a total protein concentration of 18g/L and maintained at 37°±2°C. Wear of the tibial inserts was quantified via gravimetric methods per ISO14243–2:2009(E). Polyethylene tibial insert weights were taken prior to testing and every 0.5Mcyc there after which corresponded to serum exchange intervals. The multi-activity test intervals were split into10 loops of 1,250 DKB, 3,000 SD, and 45,750 gait cycles in series. Based on activity data presented by Wimmer et al. the number of cycles per activity and activities used is sufficient for a person that is considered active [3]. A loaded soak control was used to compensate for fluid absorption in wear rate calculations. Wear rates were calculated using linear regression.
RESULTS SECTION
The wear rate for the gait-only activity test was calculated to be 0.20±0.04mg/Mcyc conversely the wear rate for the multi-activity test was 2.65±0.67mg/Mcyc (Figure 2). Wear scars can be found in Figure 3. Using a two-sided t-test of unequal variance, it was found that there was a significant difference between the two wear rates (p=0.004).
DISCUSSION
Adding activities to the wear simulation test significantly increased the average wear rate of the test samples, confirming that changes in cross shear from different activities will tend to increase the wear of an implant. The results of this study prove that single activity wear testing may not be the most clinically severe wear testing that can be used for pre-clinical wear assessment.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
