Comparison of Conventional Polyethylene Wear and Signs of Cup Failure in Two Similar Total Hip Designs

<table class="table-group" id="tab2"><tr><td><table class="table"><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="3"><hr/></td></tr><tr class="thead"><td align="left"></td><td align="left">Group 1</td><td align="left">Group 2</td></tr><tr><td class="thead-hr" colspan="3"><hr/></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Stock resin</td><td align="left">GUR 1050</td><td align="left">GUR 1020</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Manufacturing process</td><td align="left">Ram extrusion, final geometry machined</td><td align="left">Compression molding</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sterilization</td><td align="left">Ethylene oxide</td><td align="left">Gamma irradiation, oxygen-free environment</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Polyethylene thickness</td><td align="left">Range: 7.0–15.5 mm</td><td align="left">Range: 7.0–14.5 mm</td></tr><tr class="table-tr"><td colspan="3"><hr class="tbody-hr"/></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

Comparison of the characteristics of the acetabular polyethylene.

Advances in Orthopedics

tab2

Table 2

Table 2: Comparison of Conventional Polyethylene Wear and Signs of Cup Failure in Two Similar Total Hip Designs 