Estudo biomecânico comparativo do desgaste do polietileno reticulado com cabeças femorais cerâmicas de 36 mm e com cabeças metálicas de 32 mm

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Resumo

Objetivo: O objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar, in vitro, a taxa de desgaste do polietileno de alto peso molecular reticulado acoplado a cabeças cerâmicas de 36 mm de diâmetro e acoplado a cabeças metálicas de 32 mm de diâmetro.

Métodos: Foram realizados ensaios biomecânicos em simulador de desgaste para os pares tribológicos cerâmica-poli (36 mm) e metal-poli (32 mm) a fim de verificar a taxa de desgaste após em 15 × 10⁶ ciclos.

Resultados: Na comparação entre as medidas de taxa de desgaste dos conjuntos com cabeças metálicas (média:14,12 mg/MC) e cerâmicas (média:7,46 mg/MC) houve diferença estatitsticamente significativa (p = 0,0005).

Conclusão: O presente estudo demonstrou menor taxa de desgaste em conjuntos protéticos que utilizaram o par tribológico cerâmica-polietileno reticulado de 36 mm em comparação aos conjuntos com metal-polietileno reticulado de 32 mm. Tal achado demonstra a eficácia do par tribológico cerâmica-poli, mesmo com a utilização de cabeças de grande diâmetro.

Publication History

Received: 22 June 2019

Accepted: 12 November 2019

Article published online:
06 April 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. Published by Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

• Referências

• 1 Kraay MJ, Thomas RD, Rimnac CM, Fitzgerald SJ, Goldberg VM. Zirconia versus Co-Cr femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty: early assessment of wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 453 (453) 86-90
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Evans JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Sayers A. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393 (10172): 647-654
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Hunt LP, Whitehouse MR, Beswick A, Porter ML, Howard P, Blom AW. Implications of introducing new technology: comparative survivorship modeling of metalonmetal hip replacements and contemporary alternatives in the National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (03) 189-196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2017 Annual Report. Adelaide: Australian Orthopaedic Association; 2017
• 5 Kärrholm J, Lindahl H, Malchau H. et al. SHAR. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report. 2016 Disponível em: https://shpr.registercentrum.se/shar-in-english/annual-reports-from-the-swedish-hiparthroplasty-register/p/rkeyyeElz DOI: 10.18158/SJy6jKyrM
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 6 Snir N, Kaye ID, Klifto CS. et al. 10-year follow-up wear analysis of first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (03) 630-633
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS, Ramteke AA, Nawabi D, Meftah M. Long-term Results of a First-Generation Annealed Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Young, Active Patients. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (02) e225-e229
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 D'Antonio JA, Sutton K. Ceramic materials as bearing surfaces for total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009; 17 (02) 63-68
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Young EY, Gebhart J, Cooperman D, Ahn NU. Are the left and right proximal femurs symmetric?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (05) 1593-1601
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 ISO 14242-1:2012 Implants for surgery – Wear of total hip-joint prostheses – Part 1: Loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2012
• 11 ISO 14242-3:2009 Implants for surgery – Wear of total hip-joint prostheses – Part 3: Loading and displacement parameters for orbital bearing type wear testing machines and corresponding environmental conditions for test; 2009
• 12 Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Böhler N, Labek G. Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (08) 1329-1332
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Pang HN, Naudie DDR, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Teeter MG. Highly crosslinked polyethylene improves wear but not surface damage in retrieved acetabular liners. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (02) 463-468
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Bradford L, Baker DA, Graham J, Chawan A, Ries MD, Pruitt LA. Wear and surface cracking in early retrieved highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liners. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (06) 1271-1282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Gaudiani MA, White PB, Ghazi N, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Wear Rates With Large Metal and Ceramic Heads on a Second Generation Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene at Mean 6-Year Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 590-594
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tsikandylakis G, Mohaddes M, Cnudde P, Eskelinen A, Kärrholm J, Rolfson O. Head size in primary total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3 (05) 225-231
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Schmalzried TP, Huk OL. Patient factors and wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (418) 94-97
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Jasty M, Goetz DD, Bragdon CR. et al. Wear of polyethylene acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. An analysis of one hundred and twenty-eight components retrieved at autopsy or revision operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79 (03) 349-358
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Schmalzried TP, Callaghan JJ. Wear in total hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (01) 115-136
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Nashed RS, Becker DA, Gustilo RB. Are cementless acetabular components the cause of excess wear and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (317) 19-28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Perez RE, Rodriguez JA, Deshmukh RG, Ranawat CS. Polyethylene wear and periprosthetic osteolysis in metal-backed acetabular components with cylindrical liners. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (01) 1-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ, McClung CD. et al. Factors contributing to the variability of short-term radiographic wear rates in total hip replacement. Orthop Trans 1998; 22: 737
  Google Scholar
• 23 Griffith MJ, Seidenstein MK, Williams D, Charnley J. Socket wear in Charnley low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978; (137) 37-47
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Northfield MR. et al. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80 (01) 54-59
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Callaghan JJ, Pedersen DR, Olejniczak JP, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Radiographic measurement of wear in 5 cohorts of patients observed for 5 to 22 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; (317) 14-18
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ. et al. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; (381) 36-46
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar