Biotribology of artificial hip joints

Francesca Di Puccio, Lorenza Mattei, Francesca Di Puccio, Lorenza Mattei

Abstract

Hip arthroplasty can be considered one of the major successes of orthopedic surgery, with more than 350000 replacements performed every year in the United States with a constantly increasing rate. The main limitations to the lifespan of these devices are due to tribological aspects, in particular the wear of mating surfaces, which implies a loss of matter and modification of surface geometry. However, wear is a complex phenomenon, also involving lubrication and friction. The present paper deals with the tribological performance of hip implants and is organized in to three main sections. Firstly, the basic elements of tribology are presented, from contact mechanics of ball-in-socket joints to ultra high molecular weight polyethylene wear laws. Some fundamental equations are also reported, with the aim of providing the reader with some simple tools for tribological investigations. In the second section, the focus moves to artificial hip joints, defining materials and geometrical properties and discussing their friction, lubrication and wear characteristics. In particular, the features of different couplings, from metal-on-plastic to metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic, are discussed as well as the role of the head radius and clearance. How friction, lubrication and wear are interconnected and most of all how they are specific for each loading and kinematic condition is highlighted. Thus, the significant differences in patients and their lifestyles account for the high dispersion of clinical data. Furthermore, such consideration has raised a new discussion on the most suitable in vitro tests for hip implants as simplified gait cycles can be too far from effective implant working conditions. In the third section, the trends of hip implants in the years from 2003 to 2012 provided by the National Joint Registry of England, Wales and Northern Ireland are summarized and commented on in a discussion.

Keywords: Arthroplasty; Biotribology; Friction; Hip; Lubrication; Replacement; Wear.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Total and resurfacing hip replacements.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Material couplings in hip implants.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Nominal vs real surfaces. A: Roundness; B: Roughness and waviness. Adapted from ASME B46.1-1995.
Math 24
Math 24
Math(A1).
Math 25
Math 25
Math(A1).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Hertz problem of spheres in contact.
Math 26
Math 26
Math(A1).
Math 27
Math 27
Math(A1).
Math 28
Math 28
Math(A1).
Math 29
Math 29
Math(A1).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Examples of finite element models of hip implants.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Maximum pressure (A) and contact radius (B) vs load for a MoP implant (head radius 14 mm, diametrical clearance 0.2 mm, cup thickness 6 mm).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Microscopic detail of a rough contact.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forces and equilibrium in sliding contact. N and T are the normal and frictional forces acting on the upper body at the interface. Note that T is opposite to the motion direction. W and P are external forces. At the equilibrium force magnitudes must satisfy W = N and T = P; moreover the line of action of N + T must be the same of W + P.
Math 30
Math 30
Math(A1).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forces in a revolute/spherical joint: Frictionless (A) and frictional contact (B).
Math 31
Math 31
Math(A1).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Stribeck diagram: Coefficient of friction vs Sommerfeld number and identification of lubrication regimes.
Math 32
Math 32
Math(A1).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Hydrodynamic lubrication. A: Parallel plates; B, C: Fixed inclined slider bearing; D: k plot from equation (12).
Math 33
Math 33
Math(A1).
Math 34
Math 34
Math(A1).
Math 35
Math 35
Math(A1).
Math 36
Math 36
Math(A1).
Math 37
Math 37
Math(A1).
Math 38
Math 38
Math(A1).
Math 39
Math 39
Math(A1).
Math 40
Math 40
Math(A1).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Squeeze film lubrication.
Math 41
Math 41
Math(A1).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Dry and lubricated contact: From Hertzian to elastohydrodynamic lubrication pressure profiles. EHL: Elastohydrodynamic lubrication.
Math 42
Math 42
Math(A1).
Math 43
Math 43
Math(A1).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Adhesion and abrasion wear mechanisms.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Wear trends vs time for metallic surfaces.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Anisotropic wear in UHMWPE: Cross shear phenomenon.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Averages implant prices. MoP: Metal on plastic; CoC: Ceramic on ceramic; CoP: Ceramic on plastic; RHR: Resurfacing hip replacement.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Maximum pressure pm and contact half-width a, for different Dh (mm) and Cl (μm), in metal-on-metal (E = 230 GPa, ν = 0.3) and metal on plastic (E = 1 GPa, ν = 0.4) implants under 2500 N load. MoP: Metal on plastic; MoM: Metal-on-metal.
Figure 19
Figure 19
Effect of the clearance Cl and the head diameter Dh of hip implants on the lubrication, in terms of minimum film thickness (A, B) and dimensionless film thickness λ (C, D)[46]. Test case: W = 2 kN, ω = 2 rad/s, μ = 2.5 mPas. MoM: Metal-on-metal; CoC: Ceramic on ceramic; MoMRHR: Metal on metal resurfacing.
Figure 20
Figure 20
Edge loading phenomenon caused by steep cup inclination angles[52].
Figure 21
Figure 21
Trends in hip replacement implantation from 2003 to 2012. Data from[3]. MoM: Metal-on-metal; CoC: Ceramic on ceramic; MoMRHR: Metal on metal resurfacing.
Figure 22
Figure 22
Trend of femoral head size from 2003 to 2012. Data from[3].
Figure 23
Figure 23
Revision risk (Cumulative hazard with 95%CI) for hip articulation. Data from[3]. MoM: Metal-on-metal; CoC: Ceramic on ceramic.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj