Victoria P Marino, Francesca De Vecchi, Dominik J Federl, Landon M Begin, Afton K Limberg, Douglas C Moore, Joseph J Crisco, Douglas W Van Citters, Markus A Wimmer
{"title":"Friction and Cartilage Wear in Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Key Influencing Factors.","authors":"Victoria P Marino, Francesca De Vecchi, Dominik J Federl, Landon M Begin, Afton K Limberg, Douglas C Moore, Joseph J Crisco, Douglas W Van Citters, Markus A Wimmer","doi":"10.3390/lubricants14010018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hemiarthroplasty addresses joint damage confined to one side, preserving native cartilage and bone, but accelerated degeneration of the opposing cartilage can compromise outcomes. This systematic review should clarify whether coefficient of friction (COF) reliably predicts cartilage wear when evaluating hemiarthroplasty bearing materials (HBMs). Thirty in vitro studies reporting both outcomes were identified. Data were extracted on COF, wear, and testing parameters, and wear was standardized using a 0-4 rubric to enable cross-study comparison. Three analytical approaches were applied: linear model fits, Pearson's correlations, and predictive modeling. Reported COFs increased significantly with testing time, while contact stress and sliding velocity showed variable associations with COF. Predictive models for cobalt-chromium (CoCr), the most studied HBM, showed moderate fit, suggesting that mechanical parameters explain only part of COF variability. For wear, linear models showed poor fit with COF, but correlations indicated positive associations with contact stress. Inconsistent effects of velocity and distance were found. Predictive models explained little variability. Together, these findings suggest that outcomes are strongly influenced by testing conditions, lubricants, and HBM selection, and COF alone is an unreliable predictor of cartilage wear in an experimental setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":18135,"journal":{"name":"Lubricants","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12889880/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lubricants","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants14010018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Hemiarthroplasty addresses joint damage confined to one side, preserving native cartilage and bone, but accelerated degeneration of the opposing cartilage can compromise outcomes. This systematic review should clarify whether coefficient of friction (COF) reliably predicts cartilage wear when evaluating hemiarthroplasty bearing materials (HBMs). Thirty in vitro studies reporting both outcomes were identified. Data were extracted on COF, wear, and testing parameters, and wear was standardized using a 0-4 rubric to enable cross-study comparison. Three analytical approaches were applied: linear model fits, Pearson's correlations, and predictive modeling. Reported COFs increased significantly with testing time, while contact stress and sliding velocity showed variable associations with COF. Predictive models for cobalt-chromium (CoCr), the most studied HBM, showed moderate fit, suggesting that mechanical parameters explain only part of COF variability. For wear, linear models showed poor fit with COF, but correlations indicated positive associations with contact stress. Inconsistent effects of velocity and distance were found. Predictive models explained little variability. Together, these findings suggest that outcomes are strongly influenced by testing conditions, lubricants, and HBM selection, and COF alone is an unreliable predictor of cartilage wear in an experimental setting.
期刊介绍:
This journal is dedicated to the field of Tribology and closely related disciplines. This includes the fundamentals of the following topics: -Lubrication, comprising hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, elastohydrodynamics, mixed and boundary regimes of lubrication -Friction, comprising viscous shear, Newtonian and non-Newtonian traction, boundary friction -Wear, including adhesion, abrasion, tribo-corrosion, scuffing and scoring -Cavitation and erosion -Sub-surface stressing, fatigue spalling, pitting, micro-pitting -Contact Mechanics: elasticity, elasto-plasticity, adhesion, viscoelasticity, poroelasticity, coatings and solid lubricants, layered bonded and unbonded solids -Surface Science: topography, tribo-film formation, lubricant–surface combination, surface texturing, micro-hydrodynamics, micro-elastohydrodynamics -Rheology: Newtonian, non-Newtonian fluids, dilatants, pseudo-plastics, thixotropy, shear thinning -Physical chemistry of lubricants, boundary active species, adsorption, bonding