1 / 29

MBP 3970Z – 6 Week Project By: Patrick Lai Supervisor: Matt Teeter, Ph.D.c Medical Biophysics

Quantification of Third-Body Debris in Retrieved Polyethylene Orthopedic Components Using Micro-Computed Tomography. MBP 3970Z – 6 Week Project By: Patrick Lai Supervisor: Matt Teeter, Ph.D.c Medical Biophysics. Introduction.

linus
Download Presentation

MBP 3970Z – 6 Week Project By: Patrick Lai Supervisor: Matt Teeter, Ph.D.c Medical Biophysics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Quantification of Third-Body Debris in Retrieved Polyethylene Orthopedic Components Using Micro-Computed Tomography MBP 3970Z – 6 Week Project By: Patrick Lai Supervisor: Matt Teeter, Ph.D.c Medical Biophysics

  2. Introduction • Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are common methods of treatment for joint failure. • Approximately 60 000 hospitalizations in Canada due to TKA s and THAs • Increase of 101% from 10 years ago [1] • Average lifetime of implant: 10-15 years • Main reasons for failure of implant: • Osteolysis, Polyethylene wear, infection [2]

  3. Mechanics of TKA and THA

  4. Metallic Debris • Due to the mechanics and constant motion of implant • Metal debris and others can be embedded in the polyethylene liners

  5. Complication of Debris • Wears away bearing surface • Increases frictional forces • Osteolysis • Resorption of bone die to debris in joint capsule • Loosening of implant • Eventual failure

  6. Objectives • To quantify the amount of metal debris embedded in a polyethylene liner using micro CT • Develop a novel way of segmentation • Find possible errors and fixes for CT quantification

  7. Approach • Conduct segmentation of scans using micro CT images • Analyze data through ‘Paraview’ and ‘Microview’ software.

  8. Hypothesis • Using X-ray CT technology, third-party debris can be segmented from the polyethylene portions of a retrieved component

  9. Methods • Polyethylene components were surgically retrieved from failed TKR and THR • Specimens were pre-screened to have known third party debris • Scanned using Micro CT

  10. Surface rendering • Used Histogram to qualitatively set threshold levels • Microview takes threshold levels and creates isosurface • Using calibrated data from the scanner, the amount of voxels is converted into a volume • By making 2 surfaces: Polyethylene and Metal, the volume of the two are calculated.

  11. Results • No other benchmark to compare to • Therefore cannot quantitatively compare volume sizes • Visually inspect to qualitatively validate volume data • Volume data with visible artifacts are also rejected

  12. Histogram

  13. Surface reconstruction of Hip Poly

  14. Video

  15. Volume Data – Knee implants

  16. Results • Of the 11 specimens scanned: • 5 hip poly and 6 knee poly • 2 Hips polysand 2 Knee polys had anomalies

  17. Discussion- Examination of Artifacts – K722

  18. MIP – K722

  19. Surface rendering

  20. Discussion • X-ray CT can be a valid method of analyzing amount of metal debris in a retrieved poly • 7 of 11 polys measured without artifacts • The other 4 with artifacts are easily removed manually

  21. Future studies • The effect of outer artifacts on the volume measured inside • Methods of reducing artifacts

  22. Conclusion • Metal Debris can be quantified using micro CT method • Caution must be used to pre-screen images for artifacts before accepting results • Novel non-invasive way of determining volume

  23. Acknowledgements • Matt Teeter Ph.D.c • LyndsaySommervillePh.D.c

  24. Works Cited 1) Bohm, E., M. J. Dunbar, et al. (2009). "The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry—what have we learned?" ActaOrthopaedica81(1): 119-121. 2) Hayashi, A. (2009). "Modes of failure can predict outcomes after revision TKA " American Academt of Orthopaedic Surgeons News.

  25. Question Period

More Related