On the true wear rate of ultra high-molecular-weight polyethylene in the total hip prosthesis.

Ten-year socket wear in 66 hip arthroplasties: Ceramic versus metal heads

“…However, using the method of Scheier and Sandel (1976) as modified by Buchhom et al (1984), it is possible to estimate wear, notably when radiographic techniques are standardized and the anteversion of the cup is only slight. Limitation of the accuracy of measuring wear by this method is mainly due to the following three causes: (1) The dimensional changes of polyethylene cups are caused both by creepi.e., coldflow or plastic deformation-and by wear (Rose et al 1980, Rose andRadin 1982). In the first postoperative years, most of the dimensional change is caused by creep, whereas later on, wear becomes more important; it remains impossible to quantify these two separately.…”

Wear of the acetabular socket: Comparison of polyacetat and polyethylene

“…Wear rates of polyethylene sockets in hip prostheses have, however, been extensively evaluated previously (Charnley 1975, Weightman 1977, Rose et al 1980, 1982.…”

Socket wear in ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties Fixed versus rotating heads

“…Shift of the head in the socket is thought to be the result of wear and creep of the polyethylene (Rose et al 1980). Recent analysis of retrieved sockets by polarized light microscopy has suggested that wear is responsible for most of the dimensional change seen in the polyethylene socket (McDonald and Bloebaum 1995).…”