Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1527 - 1534
3 Nov 2020
Orita K Minoda Y Sugama R Ohta Y Ueyama H Takemura S Nakamura H

Aims. Vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (E1) has recently been introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). An in vitro wear simulator study showed that E1 reduced polyethylene wear. However there is no published information regarding in vivo wear. Previous reports suggest that newly introduced materials which reduce in vitro polyethylene wear do not necessarily reduce in vivo polyethylene wear. To assist in the evaluation of the newly introduced material before widespread use, we established an in vivo polyethylene wear particle analysis for TKA. The aim of this study was to compare in vivo polyethylene wear particle generation between E1 and conventional polyethylene (ArCom) in TKA. Methods. A total of 34 knees undergoing TKA (17 each with ArCom or E1) were investigated. Except for the polyethylene insert material, the prostheses used for both groups were identical. Synovial fluid was obtained at a mean of 3.4 years (SD 1.3) postoperatively. The in vivo polyethylene wear particles were isolated from the synovial fluid using a previously validated method and examined by scanning electron microscopy. Results. The total number of polyethylene wear particles obtained from the knees with E1 (mean 6.9, SD 4.0 × 10. 7. counts/knee) was greater than that obtained from those with ArCom (mean 2.2, SD 2.6 × 10. 7. counts/knee) (p = 0.001). The particle size (equivalent circle of diameter) from the knees with E1 was smaller (mean 0.5 μm, SD 0.1) than that of knees with ArCom (mean 1.5, SD 0.3 μm) (p = 0.001). The aspect ratio of particles from the knees with E1 (mean 1.3, SD 0.1) was smaller than that with ArCom (mean 1.4, SD 0.1) (p < 0.001 ). Conclusion. This is the first report of in vivo wear particle analysis of E1. E1 polyethylene did not reduce the number of in vivo polyethylene wear particles compared with ArCom in early clinical stage. Further careful follow-up of newly introduced E1 for TKA should be carried out. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1527–1534


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 93-B, Issue 2 | Pages 205 - 209
1 Feb 2011
Willis-Owen CA Keene GC Oakeshott RD

Metallosis is a rare cause of failure after total knee replacement and has only previously been reported when there has been abnormal metal-on-metal contact. We describe 14 patients (15 knees) whose total knee replacement required revision for a new type of early failure caused by extensive metallosis. A modification of a cementless rotating platform implant, which had previously had excellent long-term survival, had been used in each case. The change was in the form of a new porous-beaded surface on the femoral component to induce cementless fixation, which had been used successfully in the fixation of acetabular and tibial components. This modification appeared to have resulted in metallosis due to abrasive two-body wear. The component has subsequently been recalled and is no longer in use. The presentation, investigation, and findings at revision are described and a possible aetiology and its implications are discussed.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 5 | Pages 604 - 611
1 May 2009
Reay E Wu J Holland J Deehan D

We describe a cohort of patients with a high rate of mid-term failure following Kinemax Plus total knee replacement inserted between 1998 and 2001. This implant has been recorded as having a survival rate of 96% at ten years. However, in our series the survival rate was 75% at nine years. This was also significantly lower than that of subsequent consecutive series of PFC Sigma knee replacements performed by the same surgeon. No differences were found in the clinical and radiological parameters between the two groups. At revision the most striking finding was polyethylene wear. An independent analysis of the polyethylene components was therefore undertaken. Scanning electron microscopy revealed type 2 fusion defects in the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), which indicated incomplete boundary fusion. Other abnormalities consistent with weak UHMWPE particle interface strength were present in both the explanted inserts and in unused inserts from the same period.

We consider that these type 2 fusion defects are the cause of the early failure of the Kinemax implants. This may represent a manufacturing defect resulting in a form of programmed polyethylene failure.