Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_6 | Pages 61 - 61
1 Apr 2018
Upmann C Eisele M Pandorf T
Full Access

Introduction

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®forte (pure aluminium oxide ceramic, CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany) ball heads on clean standard test tapers and contaminated test tapers. They found that fat tissue and scratches are reducing the burst strength to 40% and to 20% of the reference burst strength, respectively. The aim of this work is to investigate if BIOLOX®delta (alumina matrix ceramic, CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany) ball heads show a similar behaviour as BIOLOX®forte ball heads with respect to taper contamination.

Materials and Methods

Each test series consisted of n=5 BIOLOX®delta 28–12/14 L ball heads and n=5 metal test tapers (Ti-6Al-4V, ISO 5832-3). For the reference series the metal tapers remained untouched representing the CeramTec standard test procedure. For the fluid series the ball heads were filled up with tap water or calf blood serum. For the solid series the metal test tapers were contaminated with small particles of bovine bone, commercially available bone cement and porcine fat tissue in the engagement zone. A chisel and a slight hammer tap were used to scratch the proximal region of the metal test taper. The ball heads were then manually attached to the contaminated metal test tapers without further force appliances. An apparatus according to ISO 7206-10 was used for burst testing. The tests were performed at CeramTec in-house test laboratory.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 134 - 134
1 May 2016
Flohr M Upmann C Halasch C Bloemer W Streicher R
Full Access

Introduction

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.

Materials and Methods

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.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXXVII | Pages 316 - 316
1 Sep 2012
Pandorf T Preuss R Flohr M Upmann C
Full Access

Introduction

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.

Material and method

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”