Introduction. Mechanical or corrosive failure of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is difficult to diagnose with current laboratory and radiographic analyses. As such, the goal of this study was to determine the mean blood concentration of cobalt, chromium, and titanium in a series of revision TKAs with mechanical implant failure and evaluate whether they facilitated identification of the underlying TKA failure mechanism. Methods. Serum cobalt, chromium, and titanium levels and synovial fluid characteristics were evaluated in 12 patients (13 aseptic revision TKAs) who underwent revision TKA between 2000 and 2020 at a single academic institution for mechanical implant failure or corrosion. Seventy-five percent were re-revisions of previously revised TKAs. Mean time to revision was 6 years. Modular metallic junctions were present in 100%. Twenty-five percent did not have another in situ total joint arthroplasty, and the remaining patients did not have a metal-on-metal articulation that could lead to elevation in serum metal ion levels. Mean follow-up after the revision TKA was 8 months. Results. Mean serum cobalt, chromium, and titanium concentrations were 11 ng/mL, 6 ng/mL, and 3 ng/mL, respectively. Serum metal ion levels facilitated failure mechanism identification in 75%, which included modular junction failure (6 cases), constraint locking mechanism failure (3 cases), corrosion of modular metallic interfaces (2 cases), and implant fracture (1 case). Arthrocentesis was performed in 75%. Mean synovial fluid cell count was 950 cells/mcL. Monocytes were the predominant mean cell type (41%), followed by neutrophils (35%), and lymphocytes (22%). Conclusion. Serum metal ion assessment should be considered when the etiology of painful primary or revision TKAs, particularly those with modular metallic junctions, remains elusive after routine evaluation

Aims. This study compared the cobalt and chromium serum ion concentration of patients treated with two different metal-on-metal (MoM) hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems, as well as a titanium nitride (TiN)-coated variant. Methods. A total of 63 patients (65 implants) were treated using either a MoM-coated (n = 29) or TiN-coated (n = 7) hinged TKA (GenuX mobile bearing, MUTARS; Implantcast, Germany) versus the BPKS (Brehm, Germany) hinged TKA (n = 27), in which the weight placed on the MoM hinge is diffused through a polyethylene (PE) inlay, reducing the direct load on the MoM hinge. Serum cobalt and chromium ion concentrations were assessed after minimum follow-up of 12 months, as well as functional outcome and quality of life. Results. No differences in mean age (69 years, 40 to 86), mean age adapted Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.1 (SD 1.4)), mean BMI (29.2 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.8)), or number of other implants were observed between groups. Significant improvements in outcome scores and pain levels were achieved for all groups, and there was no difference in quality of life (12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12)). Mean cobalt and chromium ion levels were significantly higher for the GenuX versus the BPKS hinged TKA (GenuX vs BPKS: cobalt: 16.3 vs 9.4 µg/l; chromium: 9.5 vs 5.2 µg/l). The TiN-coated implants did not appear to confer improvement in the metal ion levels. Metal ion concentrations above 7 µg/l were detected in 81%(29/36) of GenuX patients versus 41% (11/27) in the BPKS group. No GenuX patients had normal levels under 2 µg/l, versus 22% of BPKS patients. No significant reduction in outcome scores was observed regardless of the metal ion levels, whereas higher work-related activity was correlated with higher chromium concentrations. Conclusion. Hinged TKA, using MoM hinges, resulted in critically high cobalt and chromium ion concentrations. The BPKS hinged TKA showed significantly lower metal ion concentrations compared with the GenuX TKA. No benefits were observed using TiN coating. The different weightbearing mechanics might influence the wear of the component materials. Higher workloads and physical activity could influence chromium levels. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):376–385