Taper corrosion in Total Hip Arthroplasty has surfaced as a clinically relevant problem and has recently also been reported for metal heads against polyethylene. Low neck stiffness is a critical contributing factor. Catastrophic taper failures have been reported for one particular stem design with a small V-40 taper made from a less stiff titanium-alloy. The purpose of this study was to identify factors involved in the failure process. 31 revised CoCr heads ranging from 32 to 44m diameter combined with TMZF-Titanium alloy stem with a V-40 taper (Accolade I) were analysed. Stems were only available for catastrophic failure cases with dis-association (n=8) or taper fracture (n=1). Clinical data were limited to time-in-situ, patient gender and age. Head material loss increased with time in situ (r²=0.49, p<0.001). Longer heads and material loss exceeding 15mm³ showed bottoming out and consecutive catastrophic stem taper failure. Heads with failed stem tapers were all 36mm diameter. The head starts rotating on the stem taper after bottoming out, causing major abrasive wear, ultimately resulting in catastrophic failure; it is surprising that these catastrophic cases did not exhibit clinical symptoms due to raised Co and Cr metal ions, which must have resulted from the large amount of CoCr lost from the female head taper. This would have attracted medical attention and prevented catastrophic failure by taper dis-association. Control exams of patients treated with the respective stem type in combination with large CoCr heads should include metal ion determination in blood or serum, even if no clinical symptoms are present, in order to detect taper corrosion before catastrophic failure occurs

Objectives. An ongoing prospective study to investigate failing metal-on-metal hip prostheses was commenced at our centre in 2008. We report on the results of the analysis of the first consecutive 126 failed mated total hip prostheses from a single manufacturer. Methods. Analysis was carried out using highly accurate coordinate measuring to calculate volumetric and linear rates of the articular bearing surfaces and also the surfaces of the taper junctions. The relationship between taper wear rates and a number of variables, including bearing diameter and orientation of the acetabular component, was investigated. Results. The measured rates of wear and distribution of material loss from the taper surfaces appeared to show that the primary factor leading to taper failure is the increased lever arm acting on this junction in contemporary large-diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements. Conclusions. Our analysis suggests that varus stems, laterally engaging taper systems and larger head diameters all contribute to taper failure

Recent case reports have described V40 taper failure with clinically relevant adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). The real incidence of V40 taper damage and potential consequences are currently unclear, however. Aim of this study is therefore, to evaluate the long-term incidence of pseudotumors in a consecutive series of THA with V40 taper and identify potential influencing factors. From 2006 to 2007 a total number of 120 patients (127 hips) received either an uncemented (Accolade©) or cemented hip stem (ABGII©), both with V40 taper (Stryker© Mahwah, New Jersey, USA). They all were combined with 36 mm Vitallium (CoCrMo) heads and uncemented cups (Trident©) with XLPE inlays. 11,2 +/− 0,5 years post-op 82 patients with 87 hips (mean age 74 years, 58 % female) underwent clinical (PROMs) and radiographic evaluation. In 71 patients (75 hips) MARS- MRI of the hip was performed. 38 patients were lost to follow-up. In 81 patients (86 hips) chrome and cobalt levels were determined. MRI-investigation revealed 20 pseudotumors (26%) and 18 of them had a diameter of >2cm. Patients with pseudotumors had significant higher median cobalt ion levels compared to those without (2,85 μg/l vs. 1,32 μg/l; p=0,022) and a significant correlation between pseudotumors and cobalt levels was found. Radiographic osteolysis was associated with pseudotumors as well (p= 0,014). Neither approach, BMI, gender, age, type of stem, head length, inclination nor heterotope ossification showed a significant correlation to pseudotumor occurrence. Due to the high incidence of local ARMD in in asymptomatic patients with V40 taper and metal heads we recommend regular post-operative follow-up investigations including routine metal ion screening and consecutive MRI investigation upon elevation

The use of modular systems adds versatility to the implant system, better restoration of hip biomechanics and lower inventory to the hospital. There have been reports of high metal ions, ARMD reactions and high implant failure rates due to potential problems from taper failures. These are more common in metal-on-metal hip replacements, but are being also reported in other bearings. Between 2001 and 2010, we performed 383 consecutive metal-on-metal (MoM) THRs through a posterior approach, using a BHR cup and Birmingham modular head with one of three different stems, all with 12/14 tapers. The earliest 104 hips employed a cemented MS30 stem (Zimmer GmbH, Winterthur, Switzerland). Subsequent 256 were Synergy and then 23 Anthology (both uncemented and both Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics, Memphis TN USA). There was no significant difference in the average age at surgery (65.4 years cemented vs 65.6 uncemented, p = 0.69), gender ratio (1.68 vs 1.89, p = 0.64), or bearing diameter (46.7 vs 46.8, p = 0.31). The earlier 203 Synergy stems were monoblock heads, while the remaining uncemented stems included a tapered sleeve in addition. There were 3 deep infections and 11 debris-related failures (overall revision rate 4.9%). The revision rate from aseptic failures (ALTR, effusion, osteolysis or component loosening) is 2.87%. Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort showed a 10-year implant survival of 96.8% with revision for any reason as the end-point. Cemented stems had a 100% survival at 10 years and 98.6% at 12 years. The uncemented stems had a 93.8% survival at 10 years. Within the uncemented group, the monoblocks had a 5 and 10-year survival of 99.0% and 96.4% respectively while the sleeved had 98.7% (5 years) and 96.3% (7 years) and 82.5% at 8 years. Retreival analysis showed clear evidence of taper failure. Our experience suggests taper failure leading to ALTRs and its sequelae. Others have reported ALTR type reactions in metal on polyethylene and ceramic on polyethylene bearing types as well in bearing diameters ranging from 28mm to 40mm. There is a need to improve taper design especially for use with large heads, and in high demand patients

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky Type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

We maintain a database on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 mm or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I use monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for many femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been re-revised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10-inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage. In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure

Objectives

We investigated the reliability of the cobalt-chromium (CoCr) synovial joint fluid ratio (JFR) in identifying the presence of a severe aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) response and/or suboptimal taper performance (SOTP) following metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. We then examined the possibility that the CoCr JFR may influence the serum partitioning of Co and Cr.