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
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
Tapered fluted titanium stems are increasingly
used for femoral revision arthroplasty. They are available in modular and
non-modular forms. Modularity has advantages when the bone loss
is severe, the proximal femur is mis shapen or the surgeon is unfamiliar
with the implant, but it introduces the risk of fracture of the
stem at the junction between it and the proximal body segment. For
that reason, and while awaiting intermediate-term results of more recently
introduced designs of this junction, non-modularity has attracted
attention, at least for straightforward revision cases. We review the risks and causes of fracture of tapered titanium
modular revision stems and present an argument in favour of the
more selective use of modular designs. Cite this article:
Aims. Head-taper corrosion is a cause of failure in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Recent reports have described an increasing number of V40
Recent case reports have described V40
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
In metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasty (THA), large metal femoral heads have been used to increase stability and reduce the risk of dislocation. The increased size of the femoral head can, however, lead to increased taper corrosion, with the release of metal ions and adverse reactions. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the size of the femoral head and the levels of metal ions in the blood in these patients. A total of 96 patients were enrolled at two centres and randomized to undergo MoP THA using either a 32 mm metal head or a femoral head of between 36 mm and 44 mm in size, being the largest possible to fit the thinnest available polyethylene insert. The levels of metal ions and patient-reported outcome measures (Oxford Hip Score, University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale) were recorded at two and five years postoperatively.Aims
Methods
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. For part A, we included all revision surgeries carried out at our unit with the relevant data, including volumetric wear analysis, joint fluid (JF) Co and Cr concentrations, and ALVAL grade (n = 315). Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed to assess the reliability of the CoCr JFR in identifying severe ALVAL and/or SOTP. For part B, we included only patients with unilateral prostheses who had given matched serum and whole blood samples for Co and Cr analysis (n = 155). Multiple regression was used to examine the influence of JF concentrations on the serum partitioning of Co and Cr in the blood.Objectives
Methods
There are limited published data detailing the volumetric material loss from tapers of conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Our aim was to address this by comparing the taper wear rates measured in an explanted cohort of the widely used Exeter THA with those measured in a group of metal-on-metal (MoM) THAs. We examined an existing retrieval database to identify all Exeter V40 and Universal MoP THAs. Volumetric wear analysis of the taper surfaces was conducted using previously validated methodology. These values were compared with those obtained from a series of MoM THAs using non-parametric statistical methodology. A number of patient and device variables were accounted for using multiple regression modelling.Aims
Patients and Methods
We wished to investigate the influence of metal debris exposure
on the subsequent immune response and resulting soft-tissue injury
following metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. Some reports have
suggested that debris generated from the head-neck taper junction
is more destructive than equivalent doses from metal bearing surfaces. We investigated the influence of the source and volume of metal
debris on chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) concentrations in corresponding
blood and hip synovial fluid samples and the observed agglomerated
particle sizes in excised tissues using multiple regression analysis
of prospectively collected data. A total of 199 explanted MoM hips
(177 patients; 132 hips female) were analysed to determine rates
of volumetric wear at the bearing surfaces and taper junctions. Aims
Patients and Methods
There is widespread concern regarding the incidence of adverse soft-tissue reactions after metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacement. Recent National Joint Registry data have shown clear differences in the rates of failure of different designs of hip resurfacing. Our aim was to update the failure rates related to metal debris for the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR). A total of 505 of these were implanted. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a failure rate of 25% at six years for the ASR resurfacing and of 48.8% for the ASR total hip replacement (THR). Of 257 patients with a minimum follow-up of two years, 67 (26.1%) had a serum cobalt concentration which was greater than 7 μg/l. Co-ordinate measuring machine analysis of revised components showed that all patients suffering adverse tissue reactions in the resurfacing group had abnormal wear of the bearing surfaces. Six THR patients had relatively low rates of articular wear, but were found to have considerable damage at the trunion-taper interface. Our results suggest that wear at the modular junction is an important factor in the development of adverse tissue reactions after implantation of a large-diameter MoM THR.
We reviewed the literature on the currently available
choices of bearing surface in total hip replacement (THR). We present
a detailed description of the properties of articulating surfaces
review the understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of
existing bearing couples. Recent technological developments in the
field of polyethylene and ceramics have altered the risk of fracture
and the rate of wear, although the use of metal-on-metal bearings has
largely fallen out of favour, owing to concerns about reactions
to metal debris. As expected, all bearing surface combinations have
advantages and disadvantages. A patient-based approach is recommended,
balancing the risks of different options against an individual’s
functional demands. Cite this article: