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:
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 survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of ≤ 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of ≥ 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.
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.
