Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2003; 16(03): 184-190
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1632775
Clinical Communication
Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of femoral head damage during canine total hip replacement

A comparison of four reduction techniques
I. Wood
1   College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
,
H. Powell
2   Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
,
A. Kohm
3   Center for Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
,
J. J. Lannutti
2   Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
,
J. Dyce
1   College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
› Author AffiliationsThis work was supported by OSU Canine Research Funds. The authors thank Tim Vojt for illustrations. Hip skids were a generous gift from BioMedtrix.
Further Information

Publication History

Received 09 August 2002

Accepted 23 January 2003

Publication Date:
22 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Three types of hip skids and a Hohmann retractor technique were used to facilitate reduction of the prosthesis in cadaveric canine total hip replacement. The degree of damage to the femoral head was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy and optical profilometry. Standard metal and ME-92 coated metal hip skids caused severe regional scratching of the femoral head. Morphologically similar scratch patterns were also identified on femoral heads retrieved from clinical patients. Use of a plastic coated skid or the Hohmann retractor technique had no perceptible effect on surface finish, and therefore either method is acceptable in clinical practice. The use of metal hip skids cannot be recommended for hip reduction as the resultant pattern of femoral head scratching is likely to be associated with early and severe polyethylene wear.

Keywords

Hip skid - total hip replacement
 

  • References

  • 1 Bloebaum RD, Zou L, Bachus KN, Shea KG, Hofmann AA, Dunn HK. Analysis of particles in acetabular components from patients with osteolysis. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1997; 338: 109-118.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dowson D, Taheri S, Wallbridge NC. The role of counterface imperfections in the wear of polyethylene. Wear 1987; 119: 277-293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Edmonson AS, Crenshaw AH. Campbell’s operative orthopedics. Sixth Edition, Volume 2. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company; 1980: 2235.
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Falez F, La Cava F, Panegrossi G. Femoral prosthetic heads and their significance in polyethylene Wear. Int Orthop 2000; 24: 126-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Goodman SB, Lind M, Song Y, Smith RL. In vitro, in vivo, and tissue retrieval studies on particulate debris. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1998; 352: 25-34.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hall RM, Siney P, Unsworth A, Wroblewski BM. The effect of surface topography of retrieved femoral heads on the wear of UHMWPE sockets. Med Eng Phys 1997; 19: 711-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Howie DW, Haynes DR, Rogers SD, McGee MA, Pearcy MJ. The response to particulate debris. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 1993; 24: 571-81.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jasty M, Bragdon C, Jiranek W, Chandler H, Maloney W, Harris WH. Etiology of osteolysis around porous-coated cementless total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1994; 308: 111-26.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lewis G. Polyethylene wear in total hip and knee arthroplasties. J Biomed Mater Res 1997; 38: 55-75.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Maloney WJ, Smith RL. Periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty: the role of particulate wear debris. J Bone Joint Surg 1995; 77: 1448-61.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 McKellop HA, Campbell P, Park SH, Schmalzried TP, Grigoris P, Amstutz HC, Sarmiento A. The origin of submicron polyethylene wear debris in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1995; 311: 3-20.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Olmstead ML. The canine cemented modular total hip prosthesis. J American Animal Hospital Association 1995; 31: 109-24.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Raimondi MT, Vena P, Pietrabissa R. Quantitative evaluation of the prosthetic head damage induced by microscopic third-body particles in total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 58: 436-48.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Salvati EA, Betts F, Doty SB. Particulate metallic debris in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 1993; 293: 160-73.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ, McKellop H. Commentary: The multifactorial nature of polyethylene wear in vivo . J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80: 1234-43.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 “ME-92 Coating Technology-Replacing Teflon in Surgical Applications.” Internal report by Materials Science Associates (MSA), Providence, RI, July 21, 1994
    PubMed
  • 17 “3D Surface Texture Parameters.” www.michmet.com/3d_surface-texture-parameters.htm September, 2001
    PubMed