Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36824573›Full record

ReviewBiomaterials and biosystems2021

Third body damage and wear in arthroplasty bearing materials: A review of laboratory methods.

Raelene M Cowie, Louise M Jennings

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomaterials and biosystems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Raelene M CowieInstitute of Medical and Biological Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Louise M JenningsInstitute of Medical and Biological Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Third body wear of arthroplasty bearing materials can occur when hard particles such as bone, bone cement or metal particles become trapped between the articulating surfaces. This can accelerate overall implant wear, potentially leading to early failure. With the development of novel bearing materials and coatings, there is a need to develop and standardise test methods which reflect third body damage seen on retrieved implants. Many different protocols and approaches have been developed to replicate third body wear in the laboratory but there is currently no consensus as to the optimal method for simulating this wear mode, hence the need to better understand existing methods. The aim of this study was to review published methods for experimental simulation of third body wear of arthroplasty bearing materials, to discuss the advantages and limitations of different approaches, the variables to be considered when designing a method and to highlight gaps in the current literature. The methods were divided into those which introduced abrasive particles into the articulating surfaces of the joint and those whereby third body damage is created directly to the articulating surfaces. However, it was found that there are a number of parameters, for example the influence of particle size on wear, which are not yet fully understood. The study concluded that the chosen method or combination of methods used should primarily be informed by the research question to be answered and risk analysis of the device.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyExperimental simulationImplantPolyethyleneThird body wear

Identifiers

PMID36824573
PMCPMC9934499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.