6 research outputs found

    Backside Wear in Modern Total Knee Designs

    No full text
    Although modularity affords various options to the orthopedic surgeon, these benefits come at a price. The unintended bearing surface between the back surface of the tibial insert and the metallic tray results in micromotion leading to polyethylene wear debris. The objective of this study was to examine the backside wear of tibial inserts from three modern total knee designs with very different locking mechanisms: Insall-Burstein II® (IB II®), Optetrak®, and Advance®. A random sample of 71 inserts were obtained from our institution’s retrieval collection and examined to assess the extent of wear, depth of wear, and wear damage modes. Patient records were also obtained to determine patient age, body mass index, length of implantation, and reason for revision. Modes of wear damage (abrasion, burnishing, scratching, delamination, third body debris, surface deformation, and pitting) were then scored in each zone from 0 to 3 (0 = 0%, 1 = 0–10%, 2 = 10–50%, and 3 = >50%). The depth of wear was subjectively identified as removal of manufacturing identification markings stamped onto the inferior surface of the polyethylene. Both Advance® and IB II® polyethylene inserts showed significantly higher scores for backside wear than the Optetrak® inserts. All IB II® and Advance® implants showed evidence of backside wear, whereas 17% (5 out of 30) of the retrieved Optetrak® implants had no observable wear. There were no significant differences when comparing the depth of wear score between designs. The locking mechanism greatly affects the propensity for wear and should be considered when choosing a knee implant system

    Assessing the Stiffness of Spinal Fusion in Animal Models

    No full text
    The clinical goal of spinal fusion is to reduce motion and the associated pain. Therefore, measuring motion under loading is critical. The purpose of this study was to validate four-point bending as a means to mechanically evaluate simulated fusions in dog and rabbit spines. We hypothesized that this method would be more sensitive than manual palpation and would be able to distinguish unilateral vs bilateral fusion. Spines from four mixed breed dogs and four New Zealand white rabbits were used to simulate posterolateral fusion with polymethyl methacrylate as the fusion mass. We performed manual palpation and nondestructive mechanical testing in four-point bending in four planes of motion: flexion, extension, and right and left bending. This testing protocol was used for each specimen in three fusion modes: intact, unilateral, and bilateral fusion. Under manual palpation, all intact spines were rated as not fused, and all unilateral and bilateral simulated fusions were rated as fused. In four-point bending, dog spines were significantly stiffer after unilateral fusion compared with intact in all directions. Additionally, rabbit spines were stiffer in flexion and left bending after unilateral fusion. All specimens exhibited significant differences between intact and bilateral fusion except the rabbit in extension. For unilateral vs bilateral fusion, significant differences were present for right bending in the dog model and for flexion in the rabbit. Unilateral fusion can provide enough stability to constitute a fused grade by manual palpation but may not provide structural stiffness comparable to bilateral fusion
    corecore