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. We investigated 16 retrieved acetabular cups divided into Introduction
Materials and methods
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.
The aim of this study was to compare the design of the generic
OptiStem XTR femoral stem with the established Exeter femoral stem. We obtained five boxed, as manufactured, implants of both designs
at random (ten in total). Two examiners were blinded to the implant
design and independently measured the mass, volume, trunnion surface
topography, trunnion roughness, trunnion cone angle, Caput-Collum-Diaphyseal
(CCD) angle, femoral offset, stem length, neck length, and the width
and roughness of the polished stem shaft using peer-reviewed methods.
We then compared the stems using these parameters.Aims
Materials and Methods
