↓ Skip to main content

What Are the Current Clinical Issues in Wear and Tribocorrosion?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
Title
What Are the Current Clinical Issues in Wear and Tribocorrosion?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11999-014-3610-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Berry, Matthew P. Abdel, John J. Callaghan, Members of the Clinical Research Group

Abstract

Wear and corrosion in joint arthroplasty are important causes of failure. From the standpoint of current clinical importance, there are four main categories of wear and tribocorrosion: polyethylene wear, ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing wear, metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing wear, and taper tribocorrosion. Recently, problems with wear in the knee have become less prominent as have many issues with hip polyethylene (PE) bearings resulting from the success of crosslinked PE. However, MoM articulations and taper tribocorrosion have been associated with soft tissue inflammatory responses, and as a result, they have become prominent clinical concerns. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: For PE wear in the hip, several advances include improved locking mechanisms and data supporting highly crosslinked polyethylenes (HXLPE). Edge-loading in CoC articulations can contribute to stripe wear and subsequent squeaking. For MoM articulations, the relationship of wear-to-edge loading, sensitivity to component positioning, typical soft tissue response, and use of imaging is increasingly understood. Taper tribocorrosion (from femoral head-neck junctions and other modular elements) and associated soft tissue inflammatory responses appear to be serious clinical issues that are not fully understood. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: In the knee, clinical concerns remain with the efficacy of HXLPE, modular connections, and metal allergies. For PE wear in the hip, concerns remain regarding how to increase crosslinking of PE while minimizing PE fractures. With CoC articulations, questions remain on how to prevent noises, chipping, and impingement and if enhanced designs can contribute to improved results. For MoM articulations, we need to improve imaging tests for soft tissue reactions, determine best practices in terms of monitoring protocols, and better define if, how, and when to act on serum metal levels. For taper tribocorrosion, we need to use modularity wisely and also understand how to improve tapers and materials in the future. For patients at risk for tribocorrosion, we need to define realistic diagnostic and monitoring protocols. We also need to enhance revision methods, and the threshold of acceptable soft tissue damage, to minimize complications associated with soft tissue damage such as hip instability. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: HXLPE and other bearing surfaces will likely continue to be refined. We need to develop tapers with more resistance to tribocorrosion through improved understanding of the manufacturing process and ongoing engineering improvements. Revision procedures for wear and tribocorrosion can be enhanced by determining when partial component retention is appropriate and how best to manage soft tissue damage. For CoC articulations, enhanced designs are required to minimize noises, chipping, and impingement. Importantly, we must continue to promote and analyze joint replacement registries to identify early failures and analyze long-term successes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Master 15 13%
Other 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 20 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 25%
Engineering 25 22%
Materials Science 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 18 April 2014.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,847
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,329
of 241,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#29
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 241,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.