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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |