Bingley Rachel, Martin Alan, Manfredi Olivia, Nejadhamzeeigilani Mahdiyar, Oladokun Abimbola, Beadling Andrew Robert, Siddiqui Sohail, Anderson James, Thompson Jonathan, Neville Anne, Bryant Michael
1 Institute of Functional Surfaces (iFS), School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
2 School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2018 May;232(5):492-501. doi: 10.1177/0954411918760958. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
Interest in the degradation mechanisms at the modular tapers interfaces has been renewed due to increased reported cases of adverse reactions to metal debris and the appearance of wear and corrosion at the modular tapers interfaces at revision. Over the past two decades, a lot of research has been expended to understand the degradation mechanisms, with two primary implant loading procedures and orientations used consistently across the literature. ASTM F1875-98 is often used as a guide to understand and benchmark the tribocorrosion processes occurring within the modular tapers interface. This article presents a comparison of the two methods outlined in ASTM F1875-98 as well as a critique of the standard considering the current paradigm in pre-clinical assessment of modular tapers.
由于金属碎片不良反应的报告病例增加以及翻修时模块化锥度界面出现磨损和腐蚀现象,人们对模块化锥度界面的降解机制重新产生了兴趣。在过去二十年中,为了解降解机制投入了大量研究,文献中始终使用两种主要的植入物加载程序和方向。ASTM F1875 - 98通常被用作理解和衡量模块化锥度界面内发生的摩擦腐蚀过程的指南。本文对ASTM F1875 - 98中概述的两种方法进行了比较,并结合模块化锥度临床前评估的当前范式对该标准进行了批判。