4.4 Article

Wear Measurement and Assessment of Explanted Cross-Linked PE Acetabular Cups Using a CMM

Journal

TRIBOLOGY TRANSACTIONS
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages 767-777

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10402004.2014.911398

Keywords

Explanted Cups; Cross-Linked Polyethylene; Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM); Wear; Measurement Uncertainty

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Wear has been considered the main limiting factor in the longevity of hip replacements. Wear analysis is thus essential for determining wear-related failure mechanisms and prediction of wear, which will consequently enable biomedical engineers to improve the design, material, and service life of the bearing components. This article presents wear measurement and assessment of the explanted conventional crosslinked polyethylene (XPE) and second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene cups (X3) using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). An expanded uncertainty analysis was performed to assess the performance of wear measurement. Wear measurement using the CMM method was validated with the gravimetric technique. The normalized error between volumetric wear measurement of the CMM method and that of the gravimetric technique was estimated to be always less than 1, suggesting that the CMM method applied to explanted hip wear measurements under the specific conditions was accurate and reliable. The approach to CMM measurement with uncertainty analysis was shown not only to locate 3D wear scar and wear direction but also to accurately quantify linear and volumetric wear with a maximum volumetric uncertainty of +/- 3.15 mm(3) (95% confidence level). It is shown that identifying the key uncertainty components involved in the measurement process including validation, which contributes to an overall expanded uncertainty budget, is crucial to improve the confidence and the reliability of hip wear measurement results using a CMM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available