Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):423–429.

A modular femoral head–neck junction has practical advantages in total hip replacement. Taper fretting and corrosion have so far been an infrequent cause of revision. The role of design and manufacturing variables continues to be debated. Over the past decade several changes in technology and clinical practice might result in an increase in clinically significant taper fretting and corrosion. Those factors include an increased usage of large diameter (36 mm) heads, reduced femoral neck and taper dimensions, greater variability in taper assembly with smaller incision surgery, and higher taper stresses due to increased patient weight and/or physical activity. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of taper assembly compared with design, manufacturing and other implant variables.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:3–6.

Hip implant retrieval analysis is the most important source of insight into the performance of new materials and designs of hip arthroplasties. Even the most rigorous in vitro testing will not accurately simulate the behavior of implant materials and new designs of prosthetic arthroplasties. Retrieval analysis has revealed such factors as the effects of gamma-in-air sterilisation of polyethylene, fatigue failure mechanisms of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, fretting corrosion of Morse taper junctions, third body wear effects of both hard-on-hard and hard-on-soft bearing couples, and the effects of impingement of components on the full spectrum of bearing surfaces, none of which was predicted by pre-implantation in vitro testing of these materials and combinations. The temporal sequence of the retrieval process is approximately six years from first implantation through retrieval analysis, laboratory investigation, and publication of results, and thus, in addition to rigorous clinical evaluation, represents the true development and insight cycle for new designs and materials

Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history, querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose. Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage and hence poor clinical outcome.

The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting.

The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.

The long-term effects of metal-on-metal arthroplasty are currently under scrutiny because of the potential biological effects of metal wear debris. This review summarises data describing the release, dissemination, uptake, biological activity, and potential toxicity of metal wear debris released from alloys currently used in modern orthopaedics. The introduction of risk assessment for the evaluation of metal alloys and their use in arthroplasty patients is discussed and this should include potential harmful effects on immunity, reproduction, the kidney, developmental toxicity, the nervous system and carcinogenesis.