These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Polyethylene cross-linking by two different methods reduces acetabular liner wear in a hip joint wear simulator.
    Author: D'Lima DD, Hermida JC, Chen PC, Colwell CW.
    Journal: J Orthop Res; 2003 Sep; 21(5):761-6. PubMed ID: 12919860.
    Abstract:
    Advances in cross-linking have led to the development of wear resistant ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene for total joint replacement. This study compared wear reduction by two different cross-linking methods as measured in a hip wear simulator. One highly cross-linked polyethylene was treated with 7.5 Mrad gamma irradiation with post-irradiation annealing and a sterilization dose of 2.5 Mrad (10 Gamma), while the other used 9.5 Mrad warm irradiation with 10 MeV electron-beam (9.5 EB). Liners of the same design, made from nominally cross-linked (gamma sterilized) polyethylene were also tested. Gravimetric wear analysis was performed every 500,000 cycles for 5,000,000 cycles. After correcting for weight gain due to water absorption, the nominally cross-linked liners demonstrated mean wear rates of 15.7 (+/-1.7) and 12.5 (+/-1.0) mg/million cycles. Both highly cross-linked polyethylene liners demonstrated significantly less wear than their respective controls (with mean wear rates of 1.5 (+/-1.2) and -1.4 (+/-1.5) mg/million cycles). The 9.5 EB liners gained weight presumably due to increased fluid absorption, in addition to that measured in loaded-soaked control implants. Any wear occurring was therefore assumed to have been more than offset by weight gain. Highly cross-linked polyethylene was significantly more wear resistant than non- or nominally cross-linked polyethylene. The differences in wear rates between the two highly cross-linked polyethylene designs (9.5 EB or 10 Gamma) are probably too small to be clinically significant.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]