Page 26 - KNEETA

Wear Rate (mm /Mc) REFERENCES
3
1. Fehring TK. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2001;392:315-8.
10
0
5
20
25
15
2. Firestone TP. Surgical management of symptomatic instability following failed
DePuy LCS® primary total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88-A(4):80-4.
Rotating Platform 7.1 3. Jacobs JJ. Wear debris in total joint replacements. Journal of AAOS. 1994. 2(4):212-20.
July/August.
DePuy PFC® Sigma™ 4. Wang J. Role of particulate debris in periprosthetic osteolysis. Techniques in
Rotating Platform 5.2 Orthopaedics. 1993. 8(4):245-53.
5. Lemons JE. The relationship between polyethylene quality and wear. Contemporary
KNEETA® Orthopaedics. 1995. 30(1):129-36.
Medial-Pivot 4.0 6. Johnson WD. Polyethylene wear as a function of implant materials. Contemporary
Orthopaedics. 1995. 30(2):129-36.
Zimmer® Gender Solutions® 15.6 7. Gomez-Barrena E. Update on UHMWPE Research: From the bench to the bedside. Acta
NexGen® CR
Orthop. 2008;79(6):832-40.
8.
Zimmer® 9.
M/G® II CR 9.8 total knee replacements. J Biomech. 2005;38:357-65.
10.
Zimmer® 11.
Natural-Knee® II CR 8.3 knee replacements. Wear. 2009;267:757-62.
12. Haider H. Comparison between force-controlled and displacement-controlled in-vitro
wear testing on a widely used TKR implant. ORS poster. 2002;27:1007.
13. Muratoglu OK. Metrology to quantify wear and creep of polyethylene tibial knee
®
When compared to published data, the KNEETA total knee system inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;410:155-64.
has been shown to have a lower wear rate than 14. Fisher J. Wear, debris and biologic activity of crosslinked polyethylene in the knee. Clin
DePuy’s LCS® and PFC® Sigma™ Rotating Platform and Zimmer’s Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:114-9.
Gender Solutions® NexGen® CR, M/G® II and Natural Knee® II Knee 15.
Systems 9,11-13 , suggesting that implant design may be conditions of crosslinked and non-crosslinked ultra high molecular weight
polyethylene. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001; 11(1): 23-35.
more important than bearing materials. However, because these 16.
tests were conducted at other institutions not all testing variables Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;410:165-72.

data comparison.

Just as important as volumetric wear rates, particle size and
osteolytic potential play a role in the longevity of total joints.

obvious sources of the generation of polyethylene debris particles
regardless of material (crosslinked vs. non-crosslinked). Recent
reports have focused on particle size and its bioreactive threshold
with respect to crosslinked and non-crosslinked polyethylene.
Crosslinked polyethylene showed an increase in biologic reactivity
when compared to non-crosslinked polyethylene. This same
14
study also pointed out that a smaller size of particles (< 0.1 µm)
are generated from crosslinked polyethylene. Non-crosslinked
polyethylene does generate wear particles, but has a greater
concentration of the particles ranging from 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm.
Wear particles ranging from 0.1 µm to 1.0 µm have a reduced
15
bioreactive potential compared to smaller particles. Additional
testing of the predicate “ball-in-socket” KNEETA® Total-Knee
system indicated the average particle size was 0.69 µm. 16

SUNTEK KNEETA R
Medical Devices
and Electronic Total Knee system
Products Trade Co. KNEETA® Medial-Pivot Knee System
26