↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of Polyethylene Wear Rates from Gait Biomechanics and Implant Positioning in Total Hip Replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Prediction of Polyethylene Wear Rates from Gait Biomechanics and Implant Positioning in Total Hip Replacement
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5293-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marzieh M. Ardestani, Pedro P. Amenábar Edwards, Markus A. Wimmer

Abstract

Patient-specific gait and surgical variables are known to play an important role in wear of total hip replacements (THR). However a rigorous model, capable of predicting wear rate based on a comprehensive set of subject-specific gait and component-positioning variables, has to our knowledge, not been reported. (1) Are there any differences between patients with high, moderate, and low wear rate in terms of gait and/or positioning variables? (2) Can we design a model to predict the wear rate based on gait and positioning variables? (3) Which group of wear factors (gait or positioning) contributes more to the wear rate? Data on patients undergoing primary unilateral THR who performed a postoperative gait test were screened for inclusion. We included patients with a 28-mm metal head and a hip cup made of noncrosslinked polyethylene (GUR 415 and 1050) from a single manufacturer (Zimmer, Inc). To calculate wear rates from radiographs, inclusion called for patients with a series of standing radiographs taken more than 1 year after surgery. Further, exclusion criteria were established to obtain reasonably reliable and homogeneous wear readings. Seventy-three (83% of included) patients met all criteria, and the final dataset consisted of 43 males and 30 females, 69 ± 10 years old, with a BMI of 27.3 ± 4.7 kg/m(2). Wear rates of these patients were determined based on the relative displacement of the femoral head with regard to the cup using a validated computer-assisted X-ray wear-analysis suite. Three groups with low (< 0.1 mm/year), moderate (0.1 to 0.2 mm/year), and high (> 0.2 mm/year) wear were established. Wear prediction followed a two-step process: (1) linear discriminant analysis to estimate the level of wear (low, moderate, or high), and (2) multiple linear and nonlinear regression modeling to predict the exact wear rate from gait and implant-positioning variables for each level of wear. There were no group differences for positioning and gait suggesting that wear differences are caused by a combination of wear factors rather than single variables. The linear discriminant analysis model correctly predicted the level of wear in 80% of patients with low wear, 87% of subjects with moderate wear, and 73% of subjects with high wear based on a combination of gait and positioning variables. For every wear level, multiple linear and nonlinear regression showed strong associations between gait biomechanics, implant positioning, and wear rate, with the nonlinear model having a higher prediction accuracy. Flexion-extension ROM and hip moments in the sagittal and transverse planes explained 42% to 60% of wear rate while positioning factors, (such as cup medialization and cup inclination angle) explained only 10% to 33%. Patient-specific wear rates are associated with patients' gait patterns. Gait pattern has a greater influence on wear than component positioning for traditional metal-on-polyethylene bearings. The consideration of individual gait bears potential to further reduce implant wear in THR. In the future, a predictive wear model may identify individual, modifiable wear factors for modern materials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 14 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Materials Science 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 23 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,436,922
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#363
of 7,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,896
of 323,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#8
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.