↓ Skip to main content

Squeaking and microcracks in a delta–delta ceramic coupling: pin-on-disc study

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Squeaking and microcracks in a delta–delta ceramic coupling: pin-on-disc study
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00590-016-1748-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kiyokazu Fukui, Ayumi Kaneuji, Tadami Matsumoto, Kazuhiro Shintani

Abstract

There is a rising concern about squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty (THA). In pin-on-disc testing of a delta-delta coupling, we reproduced squeaking and observed microcracks on worn surfaces. We used a pin-on-disc machine and made discs and pins by cutting delta ceramic to a diameter of 40 mm (D-D). Cross-linked polyethylene was used for a comparison disc (D-P). We performed the same test using another D-D coupling specimen to confirm reproducibility. Squeaking in the D-D specimen was reproduced in wet conditions, though it was not found in the D-P specimen. Fast Fourier transform analysis showed a peak frequency for squeaking of 2794 Hz. The noise occurred at about 6.6 km of sliding distance. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the worn surface of the pin in D-D at 10.8 km of sliding distance had some microcracks. However, there was no obvious damage to the worn surface of the pin in D-P at the same sliding distance. We confirmed the reproducibility of these findings, obtaining similar results, including squeaking, from another D-D coupling specimen. Our findings show that squeaking may occur in THA using delta ceramic bearings even if implants are placed to avoid extra-articular impingement of the femoral neck. Although the clinical relevance of microcracks is unknown, they may affect long-term outcomes in THA using delta ceramic bearings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Other 2 22%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 3 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#541
of 877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,606
of 300,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 877 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 300,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.