Abstract
Introduction
Currently, there is a focus on the development of novel materials to articulate against cartilage. Such materials should either eliminate or delay the necessity of total joint replacement. While cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy is still a material of choice and used for hemi-arthroplasties, spacers, and repair plugs, alternative materials are being studied. Pyrolytic carbon (PyC) is a biocompatible material that has been available since the 1980s. It has been widely and successfully used in small joints of the foot and the hand, but its tribological effects in direct comparison to cobalt-chromium (CoCr) remain to be investigated.
Methods
A four station simulator (Figure 1), mimicking joint load and motion, was used for testing. The simulator is housed in an incubator, which and provides the necessary environmental conditions for cartilage survival. Articular cartilage disks (14mm in diameter) were obtained from the trochleas of six to eight months old steer for testing and free-swelling controls. Disks (n=8 per material) were placed in porous polyethylene scaffolds within polypropylene cups and mounted onto the simulator to articulate against 28mm balls of either PyC or CoCr. Each ball was pressed onto the cartilage disk with 40N. In order to allow fluidal load support, the contact migrated over the biphasic cartilage with a 5.2 mm excursion. Concomitantly, the ball oscillated with ±30° at 1 Hz. Testing was conducted for three hours per day over 10 days in Mini ITS medium. Media samples were collected at the end of each three hour test. Upon test commencement, media was pooled (days 1, 4, 7, 10) and analyzed for proteoglycans/sGAGs and hydroxyproline. In addition, total material release into media was estimated by determining the dry weight increase of media samples. For this purpose, 1 ml aliquots of fresh and test media were dialyzed, lyophilized and weighed on a high precision balance. Disk morphology and cell viability were histologically examined.
Results
During each day of testing, cartilage control, CoCr and PyC samples released an average of 0.236, 0.253, re 0.268 mg/mL of glycol-proteins into the medium. After running-in (day 1), the increase was highly linear (R2 >0.99) and similar for all three testing conditions. Proteoglycan/GAG (Figure 2) and hydroxyproline release (Figure 3) were also similar for both materials (p=0.46 re. p=0.12), but significantly different from control (p<0.01). Histological and cell viability images support the hypothesis of superficial zone damage of the cartilage disks for both materials. Cell viability was not different from control (p>0.33).
Discussion
The performance of PyC and CoCr was comparable using this in vitro simulation model, however appears not optimal. The observed surface fibrillation may lead to tissue breakdown in the long-term. The wear mechanism has yet to be elucidated but appears to be of adhesive nature. The lack of proteins in the medium might have suppressed boundary lubrication and thus may have played a role in the non-optimal performance of these materials. In summary, a live tissue model of articular cartilage found no difference comparing pyrolytic carbon with the current clinical gold standard CoCr.
