Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Experience with Metal on Metal (MoM) hip resurfacing devices has shown adequate cementation of the femoral head is critical for implant survival. Bone necrosis can be caused by the temperature change in the peri-prosthetic bone whilst the cement cures during implantation. This can lead to implant loosening, head/neck fracture and implant failure. During the implantation it is known that implants change shape potentially altering joint clearance and causing loosening.
Given the history of Metal on Metal implant failure due adverse tissue reactions from Cobalt and Chromium particles we sought to test a novel Ceramic on Ceramic (CoC) bearing which may mitigate such problems.
AIM
We set out to compare the behaviour of a novel ceramic femoral head component to a standard metal component in a hip resurfacing system after cemented implantation in a physiological warmed cadaveric model.
Our first aim was to perform heat transfer analysis: To document time to, and extent of, maximum temperature change on the metal/ceramic surface and inside the resurfaced femoral head bone.
Our second aim was to perform a dimensional analysis: To document any resulting deformation in the metal/ceramic femoral head bearing diameter during cementation.
METHODS
Femurs were removed from four fresh frozen cadavers and placed into a vice. One surgeon with extensive experience in hip resurfacing surgery (JH) prepared all the femoral heads for implantation. Cadaveric warming was performed using a thermostatic silicone heating element to achieve near physiological conditions (28–32°C).
The femur components were then implanted onto the femur head using Simplex P (Stryker) low viscosity bone cement. We used four ceramic (ReCerf™) and four metal implants (ADEPT®) of equal and varying size. (2 × (42mm, 46mm, 48mm, 50mm).
Temperature change was measured using a thermometer probe placed into femur neck and head from the lateral side with position check using an image intensifier. Implant surface temperature was measured using a calibrated infrared thermometer at a standard 30cm distance. Head bearing surface diameter was measured using a micro-meter. Measurements were taken 2mins pre-implantation and sequentially at 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes after implantation.
RESULTS
The bone temperature change for both metal and ceramic implants fell after implantation and then increased. The implant surface temperature increased and then stabilised for both implants. There was no significant difference in the bone or surface temperature change between metal and ceramic implants. The bearing surface diameter change was greater in the metal implants, although this was not significant. All implants returned to within one µm of initial surface diameter at 30 minutes.
CONCLUSIONS
The femoral head component of a ceramic resurfacing has similar properties for surface temperature change following implantation to conventional MOM resurfacing. The periprosthetic bone is not at risk of significant heat necrosis during cementation (max temp 32°C). The deformation following implantation was similar for both metal and ceramic components. All implants returned to near initial diameter.
The deformation and temperature changes following implantation of a ceramic resurfacing are similar to a metal implant.
