Cargando…

Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years

Background and purpose Ceramic-on-ceramic articulation is an attractive alternative to metal-on-polyethylene (PE) bearings, but little is known about the in vivo effects induced by dissemination of alumina wear debris in the periprosthetic tissues. We hypothesized that wear debris is not the main fa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Savarino, Lucia, Baldini, Nicola, Ciapetti, Gabriela, Pellacani, Andrea, Giunti, Armando
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19404796
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902876730
_version_ 1782177608652292096
author Savarino, Lucia
Baldini, Nicola
Ciapetti, Gabriela
Pellacani, Andrea
Giunti, Armando
author_facet Savarino, Lucia
Baldini, Nicola
Ciapetti, Gabriela
Pellacani, Andrea
Giunti, Armando
author_sort Savarino, Lucia
collection PubMed
description Background and purpose Ceramic-on-ceramic articulation is an attractive alternative to metal-on-polyethylene (PE) bearings, but little is known about the in vivo effects induced by dissemination of alumina wear debris in the periprosthetic tissues. We hypothesized that wear debris is not the main factor responsible for loosening and failure of the implant but that mechanical problems caused by incorrect surgical technique, prosthetic design, or trauma, may cause instability of the implants and result in production of wear debris. Patients and methods Clinical, radiographic, laboratory, and microbiological data from 30 consecutive patients with failed alumina-on-alumina arthroplasties, 19 with screwed socket and 11 with press-fit socket, were systematically collected and evaluated. Retrieved peri-implant tissues and prosthesis wear were also analyzed. Results and Interpretation Loosening was due to malpositioning, primary mechanical instability, trauma, or infection. Bone stock was generally preserved, even if screwed implants showed higher levels of osteolysis. Variable implant wear and tissue macrophage reaction were present but activation of giant cells/osteoclasts was not induced, and no correlation between histocytic reaction and the level of osteolysis was found. These findings indicate that, in contrast to the situation with metal-on-PE bearings, wear debris and occasional osteolysis were the effect rather than the cause of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic implants, and that press-fit socket fixation was the socket fixation design of preference.
format Text
id pubmed-2823169
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28231692010-02-18 Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years Savarino, Lucia Baldini, Nicola Ciapetti, Gabriela Pellacani, Andrea Giunti, Armando Acta Orthop Research Article Background and purpose Ceramic-on-ceramic articulation is an attractive alternative to metal-on-polyethylene (PE) bearings, but little is known about the in vivo effects induced by dissemination of alumina wear debris in the periprosthetic tissues. We hypothesized that wear debris is not the main factor responsible for loosening and failure of the implant but that mechanical problems caused by incorrect surgical technique, prosthetic design, or trauma, may cause instability of the implants and result in production of wear debris. Patients and methods Clinical, radiographic, laboratory, and microbiological data from 30 consecutive patients with failed alumina-on-alumina arthroplasties, 19 with screwed socket and 11 with press-fit socket, were systematically collected and evaluated. Retrieved peri-implant tissues and prosthesis wear were also analyzed. Results and Interpretation Loosening was due to malpositioning, primary mechanical instability, trauma, or infection. Bone stock was generally preserved, even if screwed implants showed higher levels of osteolysis. Variable implant wear and tissue macrophage reaction were present but activation of giant cells/osteoclasts was not induced, and no correlation between histocytic reaction and the level of osteolysis was found. These findings indicate that, in contrast to the situation with metal-on-PE bearings, wear debris and occasional osteolysis were the effect rather than the cause of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic implants, and that press-fit socket fixation was the socket fixation design of preference. Informa Healthcare 2009-04-29 2009-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2823169/ /pubmed/19404796 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902876730 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Savarino, Lucia
Baldini, Nicola
Ciapetti, Gabriela
Pellacani, Andrea
Giunti, Armando
Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title_full Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title_fullStr Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title_full_unstemmed Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title_short Is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: Clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
title_sort is wear debris responsible for failure in alumina-on-alumina implants?: clinical, histological, and laboratory investigations of 30 revision cases with a median follow-up time of 8 years
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19404796
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453670902876730
work_keys_str_mv AT savarinolucia isweardebrisresponsibleforfailureinaluminaonaluminaimplantsclinicalhistologicalandlaboratoryinvestigationsof30revisioncaseswithamedianfollowuptimeof8years
AT baldininicola isweardebrisresponsibleforfailureinaluminaonaluminaimplantsclinicalhistologicalandlaboratoryinvestigationsof30revisioncaseswithamedianfollowuptimeof8years
AT ciapettigabriela isweardebrisresponsibleforfailureinaluminaonaluminaimplantsclinicalhistologicalandlaboratoryinvestigationsof30revisioncaseswithamedianfollowuptimeof8years
AT pellacaniandrea isweardebrisresponsibleforfailureinaluminaonaluminaimplantsclinicalhistologicalandlaboratoryinvestigationsof30revisioncaseswithamedianfollowuptimeof8years
AT giuntiarmando isweardebrisresponsibleforfailureinaluminaonaluminaimplantsclinicalhistologicalandlaboratoryinvestigationsof30revisioncaseswithamedianfollowuptimeof8years