Failure of Orthopedic Implants

download Failure of Orthopedic Implants

of 24

Transcript of Failure of Orthopedic Implants

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    1/24

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    2/24

    Orthopaedics and total joint

    replacements

    Stress-shielding

    Corrosion

    Tribology and wear mechanisms

    Case study: Sulzer hip recall

    Outline

    2

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    3/24

    Introduction

    Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders are the twomost common causes of debilitating chronic pain.

    3

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    4/24

    Articular Joints

    Flexion/extension

    rolling, sliding, rotation

    Resilience

    compression, cyclic

    4

    Cartilage

    self-lubrication, hydrodynamiccushion

    Bone

    shock-absorber,

    structural/mechanical support

    Muscle

    mechanics, shock-absorber

    Tendons/ligaments Connect bone-bone, bone-muscle

    Functionality Orthopaedic Tissues

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    5/24

    Hip Contact Force5

    D.E. Harwitz et al. Journal of Biomechanics 36 (2003) 113-119

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    6/24

    Mechanical Properties ofOrthopaedic Tissues

    6

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    7/24

    Disease Progression: Osteoarthritis

    Painful, poorly understood

    Arthritic ailments affect 21million Americans with

    costs of 1.2% of GNP

    OA will inflict 60 millionAmericans by 2020

    7

    Massey JT. Vital Health Statistics

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    8/24

    Total Joint Replacements

    The ability of articular cartilage to

    repair itself is limited

    >1.5 million joint replacements per

    year world-wide

    200% increase expected each decade

    Kurtz et al., The Future Burden of Hip and Knee Revisions 2006. Surgeons. Kurtz, AAOS 2006.

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    9/24

    Early Development of THR

    Stainless steel femoral stem with cement

    Stem fractures (fatigue problem)

    Bending moment/stress tensile field

    lateral crack propagation

    Solution to fracture problem: engineeringproblem

    9

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    10/24

    Total Joint Replacements

    90% success rate at 15 yrs

    Wear from metal alloy/UHMWPE linked to

    foreign body response and loosening

    Need for development of self-lubricating,

    wear and fatigue resistant materials

    Current: solid/solid bearings

    Total joint replacements are highly

    successful surgical treatments for

    damaged cartilage

    700,000 THR and TKR annually

    50,000 revisions

    10

    AAOS, 2002

    Sir John Charnley

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    11/24

    THR MaterialRequirements

    11

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    12/24

    THR Materials

    polyethylene

    monomer3-D polyethylene

    chain

    Surface FinishZirconia, Cobalt Chrome

    Osseoinduction Titanium

    Low coefficient of frictionUHMWPE

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    13/24

    Bone cement (PMMA) vs. bony in-growth (non-cemented)

    13

    Osseointegration

    Load-bearingimmediately

    Need to wait forbone in-growth

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    14/24

    Stress-shielding: the reduction in bone density (osteopenia)as a result of removal of normal stress from the bone by animplant.

    Osteolysis: active resorption or dissolution of bone tissue aspart of an ongoing disease process.

    Look at stress in bone due to axial loading and pure bending

    moment (compression) Composite beam theory, neglecting shear

    14

    Bone Loss Stress Shielding

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    15/24

    Uniform attack: generalcorrosion that is evenly

    distributed over entire corrosionregion

    Rusting of iron, tarnishing of silver Not common in implants

    Corrosion

    15

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    16/24

    Wear

    Loss of material Abrasion, adhesion, fretting

    Delamination (due to fatigue), pitting

    Depends on friction, lubrication, contact area, surface finish

    and levels of load (stresses, conformity)

    Relevance

    Over half a million hips and knees are replaced each year

    6% need revision within 10 years Polymer component is weak link due to fatigue, fracture,

    wear

    UHMWPE articulated against Co-Cr

    Wear in TJR

    16

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    17/24

    Difference between hip and knee

    Multi-axial loading situation (hip) Trade-off

    wear, fatigue strength (want both) E, contact area, wear

    Conformity and Contact Stress

    17

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    18/24

    Four Modes of

    Wear in TJR

    18

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    19/24

    Adhesive Wear

    Energy dependent

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    20/24

    Abrasive Wear

    20

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    21/24

    3rd Body Wear

    21

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    22/24

    Fatigue Wear

    22

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    23/24

    Wear

    23

    James,S.P. et al. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater) 48:374, 1999

  • 7/29/2019 Failure of Orthopedic Implants

    24/24

    Osteochondral TE Construct

    Membrane will preventosseos-tissue formation

    throughout.

    pHEMA + maleated hyaluronan

    pHEMA + hydroxyapatite[38 m]

    [200 m]

    Chondrocytes

    will migrate into

    hyaluronan-

    loaded scaffold.

    MSCs will infiltrate

    hydroxyapatite-loaded

    scaffold.