There is much current debate concerning wear and corrosion at the taper junctions of large head total hip replacements, particularly metal-on-metal hips. Is such damage a modern concern or has it always occurred in total hip replacement but not previously noted. To investigate this five explanted V40 Exeter femoral stems (Stryker Howmedica) were obtained following revision surgery at a single centre. In all cases, the 24–26 mm femoral heads were still attached. In conventional ‘small head’ modular hip prostheses such as the Exeter, negligible wear and corrosion is seen at the taper junction of explanted devices.Introduction
Hypothesis
Recent NICE guidance recommends use of a well proven cemented femoral stem for hip hemiarthroplasty in management of fractured neck of femur. The Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been designed based on the well proven Exeter hip stem. It has a double taper polished stem design, proclaimed to share geometry and surface finish with the Exeter hip. This study investigated the surface finish of the two stems in order to investigate the hypothesis that they were different. Two ETS and two Exeter stems were examined using a profilometer with a sensitivity of one nanometer. Macroscopic visual inspection showed that the two Exeter stems had significantly smoother surface finish than the ETS stems. The roughness average (RA) values on the ETS stems were approximately an order of magnitude higher than those of the Exeter stems, mean of 0.235μm compared with 0.025μm (p<0.0001). This difference in surface finish has implications for the biomechanical functioning of the stem. Previous change of the Exeter stem to a matt surface-finish in 1976 resulted in a significant increase in stem failure rates and an understanding of the importance of the polished surface-finish in order to function within a taper-slip philosophy. By changing the surface finish in the ETS stem, longevity of the implant may similarly be affected. Clinical results have yet to be published demonstrating this. We recommend the manufacturer reconsiders the surface finish of the ETS stem to ensure it functions as well as the Exeter primary stem with which it shares a design philosophy.
Ten explanted pyrolytic carbon components of a number of finger prostheses were obtained at revision surgery for wear analysis. Implants were removed for either dislocation or failure of fixation. Hypothesis Failure of the components was due to wear from the articulating surfaces, as occurs in many hip and knee prostheses. The articulating surfaces were examined using a ZYGO NewView 5000 non-contact profilometer with a resolution of 1nm, to determine the roughness average (RA) of the surface. A total of 86 RA measurements were taken. Detailed images of the surface displayed as a 3D map of were acquired. The RA values for each component were averaged and compared against the British standard for orthopaedic implants, which states that the articulating surfaces of devices made of metal or ceramic should have RA values lower than 0.050 µm.Introduction
Methods
Finger arthroplasty lacks the success seen with hip and knee joint replacements. The Van Straten Leuwen Poeschmann Metal (LPM) prosthesis was intended for the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints. However revision rates of 30% after 19 months were reported alongside massive osteolysis. Three failed LPM titanium niobium (TiNb) coated cobalt chrome (CoCr) components were obtained- two distal and one proximal. All three components were analysed using an environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM). This gave the chemical composition of the surface to determine if the TiNb surface coating was still intact. The distal components were analysed using a ZYGO non-contact profilometer (1nm resolution) with the proximal component unable to be analysed due to its shape. ZYGO analysis gave the roughness average (Ra) of the surface and determined the presence of scratches, pitting and other damage. Images obtained from both the ZYGO and the ESEM indicated that the surfaces of all components were heavily worn. On the articulating surfaces of both distal components unidirectional scratching was dominant, while the non-articulating surface showed multidirectional scratching. The presence of unidirectional scratching suggested two-body wear, whilst the multidirectional scratching on the non-articulating surface of the distal component suggested that trapped debris may have caused three-body wear. The ESEM chemical analysis showed that in some regions on the distal component the TiNb coating had been removed completely and in other areas it had been scratched or penetrated. On the proximal component the TiNb coating had been almost completely removed from the articulating surfaces and was only present in small amounts on the non-articulating surfaces. There was little evidence of bone attachment to the titanium coating which was intended to help provide fixation. ESEM images showed the coating had been removed in some sections where there was minimal scratching, suggesting this scratching did not impact significantly in the coating removal. Therefore here the main cause of coating removal may have been corrosion, although scratching may have also have played a part. The osteolysis reported clinically may have been linked to the wear debris from the failed coating.
