header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


Metaphyseal debonding of the Corail collarless cementless stem

report of 18 cases and case-control study

Download PDF



The Corail stem has good long-term results. After four years of using this stem, we have detected a small group of patients who have presented with symptomatic metaphyseal debonding. The aim of this study was to quantify the incidence of this complication, to delineate the characteristics of patients presenting with this complication and to compare these patients with asymptomatic controls to determine any important predisposing factors.

Patients and Methods

Of 855 Corail collarless cementless stems implanted for osteoarthritis, 18 presented with symptomatic metaphyseal debonding. A control group of 74 randomly selected patients was assembled. Clinical and radiological parameters were measured and a logistic regression model was created to evaluate factors associated with metaphyseal debonding.


The prevalence of this complication was 2.1% in our series. In the multivariable model, the presence of a Dorr B-type proximal femur was associated with metaphyseal debonding (odds ratio (OR) 10.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.31 to 49.97, p = 0.002), as was a body mass index > 25 kg/m2 (OR 6.85, 95% CI 1.06 to 44.28, p = 0.04). Smaller stems and the use of a polyethylene acetabular liner appeared to be protective when compared with metal and ceramic setting hard-on-hard bearings.


We have described an uncommon but important mode of failure of the Corail stem. Surgeons should be aware of this phenomenon; overweight patients with Dorr B-type femurs and in whom hard bearings are used appear to be particularly at risk.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1435–41.

Correspondence should be sent to M. A. Buttaro; email:

For access options please click here