Are PEEK-on-Ceramic Bearings an Option for Total Disc Arthroplasty? An In Vitro Tribology Study.
BACKGROUND
Most contemporary total disc replacements (TDRs) use conventional orthopaedic bearing couples such as ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (polyethylene) and cobalt-chromium (CoCr). Cervical total disc replacements incorporating polyetheretherketone (PEEK) bearings (specifically PEEK-on-PEEK bearings) have been previously investigated, but little is known about PEEK-on-ceramic bearings for TDR.


OBJECTIVE
(1) What is the tribologic behavior of a PEEK-on-ceramic bearing for cervical TDR under idealized, clean wear test conditions? (2) How does the PEEK-on-ceramic design perform under impingement conditions? (3) How is the PEEK-on-ceramic bearing affected by abrasive wear? (4) Is the particle morphology from PEEK-on-ceramic bearings for TDRs affected by adverse wear scenarios?


METHODS
PEEK-on-ceramic cervical TDR bearings were subjected to a 10 million cycle ideal wear test based on ASTM F2423 and ISO 181912-1 using a six-station spine wear simulator (MTS, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) with 5 g/L bovine serum concentration at 23° ± 2° C (ambient temperature). Validated 1 million cycle impingement and 5 million cycle abrasive tests were conducted on the PEEK-on-ceramic bearings based, in part, on retrieval analysis of a comparable bearing design as well as finite element analyses. The ceramic-on-PEEK couple was characterized for damage modes, mass and volume loss, and penetration and the lubricant was subjected to particle analysis. The resulting mass wear rate, volumetric wear rate, based on material density, and particle analysis were compared with clinically available cervical disc bearing couples.


RESULTS
The three modes of wear (idealized, impingement, and abrasive) resulted in mean mass wear rates of 0.9 ± 0.2 mg/MC, 1.9 ± 0.5 mg/MC, and 2.8 ± 0.6 mg/MC, respectively. The mass wear rates were converted to volumetric wear rates using density and found to be 0.7 ± 0.1 mm3/MC, 1.5 ± 0.4 mm3/MC, and 2.1 ± 0.5 mm3/MC, respectively. During each test, the PEEK endplates were the primary sources of wear and demonstrated an abrasive wear mechanism. Under idealized and impingement conditions, the ceramic core also demonstrated slight polishing of the articulating surface but the change in mass was unmeasurable. During abrasive testing, the titanium transfer on the core was shown to polish over 5 MC of testing. In all cases and consistent with previous studies of other PEEK bearing couples, the particle size was primarily < 2 µm and morphology was smooth and spheroidal.


CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the idealized PEEK-on-ceramic wear rate (0.7 ± 0.1 mm3/MC) appears comparable to the published wear rates for other polymer-on-hard bearing couples (0.3-6.7 mm3/MC) and within the range of 0.2 to 1.9 mm3/MC reported for PEEK-on-PEEK cervical disc designs. The particles, based on size and morphology, also suggest the wear mechanism is comparable between the PEEK-on-ceramic couple and other polymer-on-ceramic orthopaedic couples.


CONCLUSIONS
The PEEK-on-ceramic bearing considered in this study is a novel bearing couple for use in total disc arthroplasty devices and will require clinical evaluation to fully assess the bearing couple and total disc design. However, the wear rates under idealized and adverse conditions, and particle size and morphology, suggest that PEEK-on-ceramic bearings may be a reasonable alternative to polyethylene-on-CoCr and metal-on-metal bearings currently used in cervical TDRs.
Exponent, Inc, 3440 Market Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. rsiskey@exponent.com.
Ryan
R
Siskey
Exponent, Inc, 3440 Market Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Lauren
L
Ciccarelli
Simplify Medical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Melissa K C
MK
Lui
Exponent, Inc, 3440 Market Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Steven M
SM
Kurtz
D001577:Benzophenones; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry*; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery*; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D020342:Finite Element Analysis; D007403:Intervertebral Disc / Q000601:surgery*; D007659:Ketones / Q000737:chemistry*; D008422:Materials Testing; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols / Q000737:chemistry*; D011108:Polymers; D019736:Prostheses and Implants; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013997:Time Factors; D059145:Total Disc Replacement / Q000295:instrumentation*
D001577:Benzophenones; D007659:Ketones; D011108:Polymers; C063834:polyetheretherketone; D011092:Polyethylene Glycols
J Arthroplasty. 2003 Aug;18(5):553-61
12934205
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Aug;94(2):312-7
20586080
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jul 15;35(16):E774-81
20581750
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008 Apr;85(1):204-9
17854069
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Apr;30(4):713-7
25443362
Biomaterials. 1999 Jan;20(1):1-25
9916767
Biomaterials. 2010 Jan;31(3):523-31
19815271
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul;29(7):1369-72
24674733
Bone Joint J. 2014 Jul;96-B(7):868-75
24986938
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jul 3;95(13):1193-7
23824387
Semin Spine Surg. 2012 Mar 1;24(1):57-70
22904606
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1995;209(4):263-4
8907220
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006 Apr;126(3):174-80
16482451
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Jun;19(4):532-6
15188120
Eur Spine J. 2012 Jun;21 Suppl 5:S717-26
22415761
Eur Spine J. 2015 Sep;24(9):2033-46
24903396
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Sep 1;37(19):E1209-17
22531474
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Mar;87(3):577-82
15741625
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Sep;81(5):835-42
10530846
SAS J. 2007 Feb 01;1(1):36-45
25802577
J Neurosurg Spine. 2004 Sep;1(2):202-10
15347007
J Arthroplasty. 1998 Sep;13(6):713-7
9741451
Bone Joint J. 2014 Feb;96-B(2):147-56
24493177
Hip Int. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):421-7
24817396
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2009 Jul;223(5):607-23
19623913
Int J Spine Surg. 2012 Dec 01;6:145-56
25694884
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 15;28(20):S186-94
14560190
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Oct;15(4):348-58
21699471
Int J Biomater. 2009;2009:185456
20126576