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

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.

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.

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.

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.