Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct the largest low contact stress (LCS) retrieval study to elucidate the failure mechanisms of the Porocoat and Duofix femoral component. The latter design was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer. Materials and Methods. Uncemented LCS explants were divided into three groups: Duofix, Porocoat, and mixed. Demographics, polyethylene wear, tissue ingrowth, and metallurgical analyses were performed. Results. In 104 implants, a decrease in the odds of loosening and an increase in metallosis and tissue staining in the Duofix group relative to Porocoat group was detected (p = 0.028). There was an increased presence of embedded metallic debris in the Duofix group (p < 0.001). Decreased tissue ingrowth was associated with the Duofix surface (p < 0.001). The attached beads had reduced microhardness, indicative of adverse thermal processing, which resulted in bead shedding, particulate debris, and metallosis. Conclusion. Hydroxyapatite coating of the LCS femoral component produced unexpected results and led to its recall. The root cause was likely a combination of retained alumina grit and a reduction in bead microhardness (mechanical strength) resulting in increased particle debris, metallosis, and early revision. The Duofix LCS femoral component was not equivalent to the Porocoat version despite its approval through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) equivalance approval process. Regulation of the introduction of modified existing devices needs to be improved and the Duofix LCS should have been considered to be a new device for which equivalence had not been demonstrated at the point of introduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1248–1255

We compared the radiological appearances and survival of four methods of fixation of a femoral stem in 538 hips after follow-up for five or ten years. The fixation groups were: 1) press-fit shot-blasted smooth Ti-Al-V stem; 2) press-fit shot-blasted proximally ridged stem; 3) proximal hydroxyapatite (HA) coating; and 4) cementing. Survival analysis at five to ten years showed better results in the HA-coated (100% at five to six years) and cemented stems (100% at 5 to 6 years) than in the two press-fit groups. There was a higher mean rate of migration in the smooth and ridged Ti-Al-V shot-blasted press-fit groups (0.8 mm/year and 0.6 mm/year, respectively) when compared with the HA-coated and cemented prostheses (both 0.3 mm/year). More radiolucent lines and osteolytic lesions were seen in the press-fit groups than in either the HA-coated or cemented implants, with a trend for a lower incidence of both in the HA compared with the cemented group. Proximal osteopenia increased in the press-fit and cemented prostheses with time, but did not do so in the HA group. There was a higher incidence of resorption of the femoral neck with time in the cemented group than in the other three. We conclude that the HA and the cemented interfaces both provide secure fixation with a trend in favour of HA. The cemented prosthesis meets the suggested National Institutes of Health definition of ‘efficacious’ at ten years