Ceramic ball heads are well known in hip arthroplasty for their superior tribology performance and high burst strength. To assess the ball head performance and the in-vivo fracture risk Pandorf et al 2008 examined the burst strength of BIOLOX® Each test series consisted of n=5 BIOLOX®Introduction
Materials and Methods
Realistic in-vivo loads on knee implants from telemetric analyses were recently published. Impacting an implant, especially a ceramic one, will produce high peak stresses within the component. Data for loads occurring during implantation of a knee implant are scarce. To ensure a safe impaction of ceramic tibial trays the stresses caused by it need to be known. Impaction testing including force measurements (using Kistler piezo load cell 9351B) was performed on a ceramic tibial tray. The same test was simulated by computational analysis using FEM (Finite-Element-Method). Because the forces measured and those calculated by FEM were significantly different, an in vitro impaction study was performed to obtain realistic loads for a ceramic tibial tray. A surgeon was asked to perform heavy hammer blows which may occur during implantation. Using a high speed camera (phantom V7.2) the velocity of the hammer at the time of impaction was determined. Using this parameter instrumented ceramic tibial trays (BPK-S Knee, P. Brehm) were implanted into a biomechanical Sawbones® model. Linear strain gauges were attached to the four fins of the tibial tray as these are the regions of highest stresses. Simulating the surgeon's highest impacts measurements were conducted at a frequency of 1 MHz. The identical hammer was used in this in vitro study and the velocity of the hammer was measured by using the same high speed camera. To investigate the damping effect of bone cement Palacos®R bone cement was used. Only worst-case impacts within the range achieved by the surgeon were applied to evaluate the stress distribution within the ceramic tibial tray.Introduction
Materials and Methods
In knee arthroplasty a ceramic component has several advantages: first, there is no ion release implying a risk for potential allergies. Second, the hardness of the material leads to a scratch resistance which ultimately reduces PE wear over time. In the past, ceramic components in knee applications were limited in the variety of design possibilities due to necessary thickness of the component resulting from the associated fracture risk of ceramics. By the development of an alumina matrix composite material with increased mechanical properties it is possible to develop ceramic knee components which have nearly the same design as a metal component and use the same implantation technique as well as the same instruments. This offers the surgeon the opportunity to choose intraoperatively between metal or ceramic knee components. Extensive in-vitro testing shows that ceramic knee components achieve superior mechanical test results. The reliability of the components is proven by two different burst tests and a fatigue test for both a femoral and a tibial ceramic knee component. The mechanical proof-test was developed by subsequent steps of numerical load/stress analysis and design of an adequate mechanical test equipment. The procedure was organized as follows: Oncologic: Analysis of relevant maximum in-vivo loading conditions Analysis of the “boundary conditions” Finite Element analysis: Identifying regions of highest stress concentration Design analysis and accommodation if necessary Development of an adequate mechanical test equipment which produces stresses comparable to the in-vivo conditions Performing mechanical tests with ceramic femoral components Validation of the test concept: comparison of test results and stress analysis Assign “safety margin”, Establish “proof test”Introduction
Material and method
