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

Objectives. Modular junctions are ubiquitous in contemporary hip arthroplasty. The head-trunnion junction is implicated in the failure of large diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) hips which are the currently the topic of one the largest legal actions in the history of orthopaedics (estimated costs are stated to exceed $4 billion). Several factors are known to influence the strength of these press-fit modular connections. However, the influence of different head sizes has not previously been investigated. The aim of the study was to establish whether the choice of head size influences the initial strength of the trunnion-head connection. Materials and Methods. Ti-6Al-4V trunnions (n = 60) and two different sizes of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) heads (28 mm and 36 mm; 30 of each size) were used in the study. Three different levels of assembly force were considered: 4 kN; 5 kN; and 6 kN (n = 10 each). The strength of the press-fit connection was subsequently evaluated by measuring the pull-off force required to break the connection. The statistical differences in pull-off force were examined using a Kruskal–Wallis test and two-sample Mann–Whitney U test. Finite element and analytical models were developed to understand the reasons for the experimentally observed differences. Results. 36 mm diameter heads had significantly lower pull-off forces than 28 mm heads when impacted at 4 kN and 5 kN (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), but not at 6 kN (p = 0.21). Mean pull-off forces at 4 kN and 5 kN impaction forces were approximately 20% larger for 28 mm heads compared with 36 mm heads. Finite element and analytical models demonstrate that the differences in pull-off strength can be explained by differences in structural rigidity and the resulting interface pressures. Conclusion. This is the first study to show that 36 mm Co-Cr heads have up to 20% lower pull-off connection strength compared with 28 mm heads for equivalent assembly forces. This effect is likely to play a role in the high failure rates of large diameter MoM hips. Cite this article: A. R. MacLeod, N. P. T. Sullivan, M. R. Whitehouse, H. S. Gill. Large-diameter total hip arthroplasty modular heads require greater assembly forces for initial stability. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:338–346. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0044.R1

Aims

In computer simulations, the shape of the range of motion (ROM) of a stem with a cylindrical neck design will be a perfect cone. However, many modern stems have rectangular/oval-shaped necks. We hypothesized that the rectangular/oval stem neck will affect the shape of the ROM and the prosthetic impingement.

Objectives

The high revision rates of the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and the DePuy ASR XL (the total hip arthroplasty (THA) version) have led to questions over the viability of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip joints. Some designs of MoM hip joint do, however, have reasonable mid-term performance when implanted in appropriate patients. Investigations into the reasons for implant failure are important to offer help with the choice of implants and direction for future implant designs. One way to assess the performance of explanted hip prostheses is to measure the wear (in terms of material loss) on the joint surfaces.