Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) printing of porous titanium implants marks a revolution in orthopaedics, promising enhanced bony fixation whilst maintaining design equivalence with conventionally manufactured components. No retrieval study has investigated differences between implants manufactured using these two methods. Our study was the first to compare these two groups using novel non-destructive methods.

Introduction

The use of Additive Manufacturing (AM) to 3D print titanium implants is becoming widespread in orthopaedics, particularly in producing cementless porous acetabular components that are either custom-made or off-the-shelf; the primary design rationale for this is enhanced bony fixation by matching the porosity of bone. Analysis of these retrieved components can help us understand their performance; in this study we introduce a non-destructive method of the retrieval analysis of 3D printed implants.

Several implants have a proven track record of durability and function in patients over many years. As manufacturers' patents expire it is understandable that cheaper generic copies would be considered. There is currently no established, independent method of determining design equivalence between generic and branded orthopaedic implants.

We acquired 10 boxed, as manufactured components consisting of the generic OptiStem XTR model (n=5) and branded Exeter (n=5) femoral stems. Two examiners were blinded to the implant design and independently measured the mass, volume, trunnion surface topography, roughness, trunnion cone angle, CCD angle and femoral offset using peer-reviewed methods. We then compared the stems using these parameters.

We found that the OptiStems (1) were lighter (p<0.001) (2) had a rougher trunnion surface (p<0.001) with a greater spacing and depth of the machined threads (p<0.001), (3) had greater trunnion cone angles (p=0.007) and (4) a smaller radius at the top of the trunnion (p=0.007). There was no difference for stem volume (p=0.643), CCD angle (p=0.788) or offset (p=0.993).

This study is the first independent investigation of the equivalence of a generic orthopaedic implant to its branded design. We found a clear difference in trunnion roughness, trunnion cone angle and radius, and implant mass when comparing the two generic and branded stem designs. All implants require standard regulatory processes to be followed. It does not appear feasible that generic implants can be manufactured to predictability guarantee the same performance as generic drugs.

We found a number of physical differences between the generic and branded implants. Whilst both designs are likely to work in clinical practice, they are different.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the design of the generic OptiStem XTR femoral stem with the established Exeter femoral stem.