TY - JOUR
T1 - Fatigue wear test comparing vitamin-E-blended crosslinked polyethylene and conventional polyethylene in a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine in the laboratory
AU - Matsumoto, Koji
AU - Tokuhashi, Yasuaki
AU - Sawada, Hirokatsu
AU - Saito, Sosuke
AU - Suzuki, Satoshi
AU - Ozaki, Ryo
AU - Nakanishi, Kazuyoshi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Japanese Orthopaedic Association
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Background: Although artificial joints using polyethylene have been developed for various joints, the development of Posterior Dynamic Stabilization system of the spine using polyethylene has proceeded at a much slower pace. There are no studies which compare the abrasion resistance of vitamin-E-blended crosslinked polyethylene (VE) and conventional polyethylene (Virgin) in the spinal region. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear resistance of VE and Virgin in a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine. Methods: Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine uses a polyethylene ball as a sliding surface. A fatigue wear test was repeated up to 1 million cycles at a speed of ±5°, 1 Hz while the rod was being pulled at a load of 50 N. Balls were compared using VE and Virgin in 6 samples each. Ti-6AL-4 V (Ti 64) and Co–Cr–Mo (CoCr) rods were used. Abrasion loss and shape change of the polyethylene balls were compared. Results: When Ti 64 was used as the rod, the average wear amount was −0.01 mg (0.02 mg, 0.01 mg, −0.06 mg) for VE, and 0.23 mg (0.18 mg, 0.13 mg, 0.38 mg) for Virgin. When CoCr was used as the rod, the average wear amount was 0.42 mg (0.71 mg, −0.06 mg, 0.61 mg) for VE, and 0.73 mg (0.72 mg, 0.70 mg, 0.76 mg) for Virgin. Most polyethylene samples showed indentations of 0.1 m or less at the contact point with the set screw. In the combination of Virgin and CoCr, a white patch was observed on the inner side of the polyethylene samples, with a maximum depression of 0.1 mm. Conclusions: A fatigue wear test showed VE to be more efficient in abrasion resistance than Virgin in a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine in the laboratory.
AB - Background: Although artificial joints using polyethylene have been developed for various joints, the development of Posterior Dynamic Stabilization system of the spine using polyethylene has proceeded at a much slower pace. There are no studies which compare the abrasion resistance of vitamin-E-blended crosslinked polyethylene (VE) and conventional polyethylene (Virgin) in the spinal region. The purpose of this study was to compare the wear resistance of VE and Virgin in a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine. Methods: Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine uses a polyethylene ball as a sliding surface. A fatigue wear test was repeated up to 1 million cycles at a speed of ±5°, 1 Hz while the rod was being pulled at a load of 50 N. Balls were compared using VE and Virgin in 6 samples each. Ti-6AL-4 V (Ti 64) and Co–Cr–Mo (CoCr) rods were used. Abrasion loss and shape change of the polyethylene balls were compared. Results: When Ti 64 was used as the rod, the average wear amount was −0.01 mg (0.02 mg, 0.01 mg, −0.06 mg) for VE, and 0.23 mg (0.18 mg, 0.13 mg, 0.38 mg) for Virgin. When CoCr was used as the rod, the average wear amount was 0.42 mg (0.71 mg, −0.06 mg, 0.61 mg) for VE, and 0.73 mg (0.72 mg, 0.70 mg, 0.76 mg) for Virgin. Most polyethylene samples showed indentations of 0.1 m or less at the contact point with the set screw. In the combination of Virgin and CoCr, a white patch was observed on the inner side of the polyethylene samples, with a maximum depression of 0.1 mm. Conclusions: A fatigue wear test showed VE to be more efficient in abrasion resistance than Virgin in a Posterior Dynamic Stabilization System of the spine in the laboratory.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104492321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jos.2021.02.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jos.2021.02.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 33865669
AN - SCOPUS:85104492321
SN - 0949-2658
VL - 27
SP - 558
EP - 562
JO - Journal of Orthopaedic Science
JF - Journal of Orthopaedic Science
IS - 3
ER -