header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Knee

Oxidised zirconium versus cobalt alloy bearing surfaces in total knee arthroplasty

3D laser scanning of retrieved polyethylene inserts



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

We sought to establish whether an oxidised zirconium (OxZr) femoral component causes less loss of polyethylene volume than a cobalt alloy (CoCr) femoral component in total knee arthroplasty.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 retrieved tibial inserts that had articulated with OxZr components were matched with 20 inserts from CoCr articulations for patient age, body mass index, length of implantation, and revision diagnosis. Changes in dimensions of the articular surfaces were compared with those of pristine inserts using laser scanning. The differences in volume between the retrieved and pristine surfaces of the two groups were calculated and compared.

Results

The loss of polyethylene volume was 122 mm3 (standard deviation (sd) 87) in the OxZr group and 170 mm3 (sd 96) in the CoCr group (p = 0.033). The volume loss in the OxZr group was also lower in the medial (72 mm3 (sd 67) versus 92 mm3 (sd 60); p = 0.096) and lateral (49 mm3 (sd 36) versus 79 mm3 (sd 61); p = 0.096) compartments separately, but these differences were not significant.

Conclusion

Our results corroborate earlier findings from in vitro testing and visual retrieval analysis which suggest that polyethylene volume loss is lower with OxZr femoral components. Since both OxZr and CoCr are hard surfaces that would be expected to create comparable amounts of polyethylene creep, the differences in volume loss may reflect differences in the in vivo wear of these inserts.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:793–8.


Correspondence should be sent to T. Wright; email:

For access options please click here