Finishing of femoral knee joint implant is very cumbersome due to its freeform nature. In the present study, a magnetic field-assisted finishing process is employed to uniformly finish the femoral knee implant over its surface curvature at the nanometer level. Experiments are conducted to analyze the freeform surface finishing capability of magnetic field-assisted finishing tool, which proves the tool’s capability to achieve the required surface properties of a femoral knee implant. A comparative analysis between the performance of the magnetic field assisted finishing process and manually polished surface relative to tibial bearing material, that is, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene with the help of pin-on-disc tribometer, is carried out. It will help to understand the in vivo performance of a finished femoral component of the knee joint by a magnetic field-assisted finishing process. The wear tests prove that the volume loss of the disc material while considering magnetic field-assisted finished pins (11.79 mm3) are better in all cases than the manually polished pins (27.97 mm3). The tribology test also demonstrates that femoral knee implant polished using magnetic field-assisted finishing process will face fewer problems related to wear debris. It will also reduce the problems that occur due to the mixing of debris in the bloodstream. The polishing tool provides almost uniform nanometer-level surface finishing with a standard deviation of 19.23 along the surface curvature. The minimum achieved surface roughness of the femoral knee joint is 20 nm.
KennedyFEVan CittersDWWongseedakaewK, et al. Lubrication and wear of artificial knee joint materials in a rolling/sliding tribotester. J Tribol2007; 129: 326.
MalikianRMaruthainarKStammersJ, et al. In vivo roughening of retrieved total knee arthroplasty femoral components. Knee2014; 21: 278–282.
5.
HowieDWHaynesDRRogersSD, et al. The response to particulate debris. Orthop Clin North Am1993; 24: 571–581.
6.
SharkeyPFLichsteinPMShenC, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years?J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1774–1778.
7.
KlimekLWołowiecEMajkowskaB.Types of wear and tear of biomaterials used in orthopaedic surgery. J Achiev Mater Manuf Eng2013; 56: 83–89.
8.
RajputASKapilSDasM. Methods for surface superfinishing of prosthesis BT. In: JoshiSNChandraP (eds.) Advanced micro- and nano-manufacturing technologies: Applications in biochemical and biomedical engineering. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2022, pp.335–360.
9.
GotmanI. Biomechanical and tribological aspects of orthopaedic implants BT. In: OstermeyerG-PPopovVLShilkoEV, et al. (eds.) Multiscale biomechanics and tribology of inorganic and organic systems: in memory of professor sergey psakhie. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.25–44.
10.
SilvaMSnowK. Biotribology considerations of total knee replacement. Boston, MA: Mechanical & Industrial Engineering.
11.
DowsonDTaheriSWallbridgeNC.The role of counterface imperfections in the wear of polyethylene. Wear1987; 119: 277–293.
12.
BowsherJGSheltonJC.A hip simulator study of the influence of patient activity level on the wear of crosslinked polyethylene under smooth and roughened femoral conditions. Wear2001; 250: 167–179.
13.
DesJardinsJDBurnikelBLaBergeM.UHMWPE wear against roughened oxidized zirconium and CoCr femoral knee components during force-controlled simulation. Wear2008; 264: 245–256.
14.
PalingIHSchmalzriedTPCallaghanJJ.Wear in total hip and knee replacements. J Bone Jt Surg2000; 82: 1804.
15.
CooperJRDowsonDFisherJ.The effect of transfer film and surface roughness on the wear of lubricated ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Mater1993; 14: 295–302.
16.
FisherJDowsonDHamdzahH, et al. The effect of sliding velocity on the friction and wear of UHMWPE for use in total artificial joints. Wear1994; 175: 219–225.
17.
HaileyJLInghamEStoneM, et al. Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear debris generated in vivo and in laboratory tests; the influence of counterface roughness. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine1996; 210: 3–10.
18.
LancasterJGDowsonDIsaacGH, et al. The wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene sliding on metallic and ceramic counterfaces representative of current femoral surfaces in joint replacement. Proc IMechE, Part H: J ineering in Medicine1997; 211: 17–24.
19.
RooksB.Robots score at grinding and polishing. Ind Robot An Int J1998; 25: 251–255.
20.
HilerioIBarronMAViteM.3D characterization of surface state in a knee prosthesis. ASME World Tribol Congr World Tribol Congr III2005; 2: 679–680.
21.
HilerioIMathiaTAlepeeC.3D measurements of the knee prosthesis surfaces applied in optimizing of manufacturing process. Wear2004; 257: 1230–1234.
22.
CharltonPBluntL.Surface and form metrology of polished ‘freeform’ biological surfaces. Wear2008; 264: 394–399.
23.
SinghAKJhaSPandeyPM.Nanofinishing of a typical 3D ferromagnetic workpiece using ball end magnetorheological finishing process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2012; 63: 21–31.
24.
SeokJKimY-JJangK-I, et al. A study on the fabrication of curved surfaces using magnetorheological fluid finishing. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2007; 47: 2077–2090.
25.
SinghAKJhaSPandeyPM.Design and development of nanofinishing process for 3D surfaces using ball end MR finishing tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2011; 51: 142–151.
26.
JhaSJainVK.Design and development of the magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing (MRAFF) process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2004; 44: 1019–1029.
27.
SidparaAJainV.Nanofinishing of freeform surfaces of prosthetic knee joint implant. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2012; 226: 1833–1846.
28.
SidparaAJainVK.Analysis of forces on the freeform surface in magnetorheological fluid based finishing process. Int J Mach Tools Manuf2013; 69: 1–10.
29.
KumarSJainVKSidparaA.Nanofinishing of freeform surfaces (knee joint implant) by rotational-magnetorheological abrasive flow finishing (R-MRAFF) process. Precis Eng2015; 42: 165–178.
30.
YamaguchiHGrazianoAA.Surface finishing of cobalt chromium alloy femoral knee components. CIRP Ann Technol2014; 63: 309–312.
31.
BarmanADasM.Design and fabrication of a novel polishing tool for finishing freeform surfaces in magnetic field assisted finishing (MFAF) process. Precis Eng2017; 49: 61–68.
32.
GeethaMSinghAKAsokamaniR, et al. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants–a review. Prog Mater Sci2009; 54: 397–425.
33.
RackHJQaziJI.Titanium alloys for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C2006; 26: 1269–1277.
34.
JungBJangK-IMinB-K, et al. Parameter optimization for finishing hard materials with magnetorheological fluid using the penalized multi-response Taguchi method. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2009; 223: 955–968.
35.
DasMJainVKGhoshdastidarPS.Computational fluid dynamics simulation and experimental investigations into the magnetic-field-assisted nano-finishing process. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture2012; 226: 1143–1158.
36.
WalkerPSBlunnGWLilleyPA.Wear testing of materials and surfaces for total knee replacement. J Biomed Mater Res1996; 33: 159–75.
37.
GispertMPSerroAPColaçoR, et al. Tribological behaviour of Cl-implanted TiN coatings for biomedical applications. Wear2007; 262: 1337–1345.
38.
ASTM F648-14 Standard specification for ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene powder and fabricated form for surgical implants, DOI: 10.1520/F0648 (2014).
39.
BarmanADasM.Nano-finishing of bio-titanium alloy to generate different surface morphologies by changing magnetorheological polishing fluid compositions. Precis Eng2018; 51: 145–152.
40.
ASTM G99-17, Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a Pin-on-Disk Apparatus, DOI: 10.1520/G0099-17, ICS Code: 17.040.20.
41.
BarmanADasM.Toolpath generation and finishing of bio-titanium alloy using novel polishing tool in MFAF process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2019; 100(5): 1125–1135.
42.
HuangWZalnezhadEMusharavatiF, et al. Investigation of the tribological and biomechanical properties of CrAlTiN and CrN/NbN coatings on SST 304. Ceram Int2017; 43: 7992–8003.
43.
ISO 7207-2:2011. Implants for surgery—components for partial and total knee joint prostheses—part 2: articulating surfaces made of metal, ceramic and plastics materials.
