Ashley K Matthies

Material Loss at the Taper Junction of Retrieved Large Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacements

It has been speculated that material loss, either as corrosion or wear, at the head–stem taper junction is implicated in the high revision rates reported for metal‐on‐metal total hip replacements. We measured the volume of material loss from the taper and bearing surfaces of retrieved devices, and investigated the associations with blood metal ion levels and the diagnosis of a cystic or solid pseudotumor. The median volumes of material lost from the female and male taper surfaces were 2.0 and 0.29 mm3, respectively, while the median volumes of wear from the cup and head bearing surfaces were 1.94 and 3.44 mm3, respectively. Material loss from the female taper was similar to that from the acetabular bearing surface (p = 0.55), but significantly less than that from the femoral bearing surface (p < 0.001). Material loss from the male taper was less than that from both bearing surfaces (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated no significant correlations between the volume of material lost from the taper surfaces and either blood cobalt or chromium ions, or the presence of pseudotumor. While a substantial volume of material is lost at the taper junction, the clinical significance of this debris remains unclear.

Retrieval analysis of 240 metal-on-metal hip components, comparing modular total hip replacement with hip resurfacing.

This study compared component wear rates and pre-revision blood metal ions levels in two groups of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: hip resurfacing and modular total hip replacement (THR). There was no significant difference in the median rate of linear wear between the groups for both acetabular (p = 0.4633) and femoral (p = 0.0872) components. There was also no significant difference in the median linear wear rates when failed hip resurfacing and modular THR hips of the same type (ASR and Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR)) were compared. Unlike other studies of well-functioning hips, there was no significant difference in pre-revision blood metal ion levels between hip resurfacing and modular THR. Edge loading was common in both groups, but more common in the resurfacing group (67%) than in the modular group (57%). However, this was not significant (p = 0.3479). We attribute this difference to retention of the neck in resurfacing of the hip, leading to impingement-type edge loading. This was supported by visual evidence of impingement on the femur. These findings show that failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and modular THRs have similar component wear rates and are both associated with raised pre-revision blood levels of metal ions.

A comparison of explanted Articular Surface Replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing components

The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing arthroplasty has a failure rate of 12.0% at five years, compared with 4.3% for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). We analysed 66 ASR and 64 BHR explanted metal-on-metal hip replacements with the aim of understanding their mechanisms of failure. We measured the linear wear rates of the acetabular and femoral components and analysed the clinical cause of failure, pre-revision blood metal ion levels and orientation of the acetabular component. There was no significant difference in metal ion levels (chromium, p = 0.82; cobalt, p = 0.40) or head wear rate (p = 0.14) between the two groups. The ASR had a significantly increased rate of wear of the acetabular component (p = 0.03) and a significantly increased occurrence of edge loading (p < 0.005), which can be attributed to differences in design between the ASR and BHR. The effects of differences in design on the in vivo wear rates are discussed: these may provide an explanation as to why the ASR is more sensitive to suboptimal positioning than the BHR.

The Reliability of a Scoring System for Corrosion and Fretting, and Its Relationship to Material Loss of Tapered, Modular Junctions of Retrieved Hip Implants

It has been suggested that corrosion and fretting at the tapered, modular junctions of hip arthroplasties may contribute to implant failure. In this study the reliability of a commonly used peer-reviewed scoring system for visual assessment of corrosion and fretting at these junctions was evaluated. Volumetric material loss at the tapered head surface was measured and associations with the visual scores were investigated. We found that the inter-observer reproducibility and single-observer repeatability of the corrosion scores were substantial using Cohens weighted Kappa statistic (k = 0.64-0.71). The reproducibility and repeatability of the fretting scores however were slight to fair (k = 0.18-0.31). Taper corrosion scores were significantly and moderately correlated with the volume of material loss measured (Spearmans r = 0.59; P < 0.001). We recommend the continued use of this scoring system but it should not be a substitute for measurement of material loss.

Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal‐on‐metal hip resurfacing

Suboptimal component position and design are thought to lead to edge wear and raised blood metal ion levels in metal‐on‐metal hip resurfacing (MOM‐HR). These factors are thought to influence the “contact patch to rim distance” (CPRD), and calculation of this distance may improve prediction of wear and blood metal ion levels. We measured blood cobalt and chromium ion levels and the wear rates of the bearing surfaces in 165 MOM‐HR retrieval cases. We then determined the contribution and effect sizes of cup inclination and version angles, component size and design, and CPRD (calculated from case‐specific data) on blood metal ion levels and component wear rates. Acetabular orientation explained between 16.3% and 28.5% of the variation in wear rates and metal ion levels, whereas component size and design explained between 7.3% and 21.8% of the variability. In comparison, CPRD explained up to 67.7% of the variability, significantly greater than any other variable (all p < 0.0001). CPRD is a good predictor of wear and improves our understanding of wear performance and the mechanisms leading to edge loading.

Understanding why metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties fail: a comparison between patients with well-functioning and revised birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasties. AAOS exhibit selection.

BACKGROUND A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss. METHODS We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith & Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty. RESULTS Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p < 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p < 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p < 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of <5 μm/year. CONCLUSIONS In a large number of patients with unexplained hip pain leading to revision of a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, the acetabular cup orientation was satisfactory and the material loss rate was low. We suspect that patient-specific factors may have been responsible for the failure in a large proportion of these patients.

A retrieval analysis of explanted Durom metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.

Given the recent reports of high failure rates, an improved understanding of the mechanism of failure of large diameter metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties is essential. We present clinical data and tribological analysis of a consecutive series of 74 failed large diameter metal-on-metal hips, comparing the Durom (Zimmer) with the Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) (Smith and Nephew). We retrospectively analysed pre-, intra-, and post-operative clinical data and measured the linear wear and component form of the explanted components using a roundness measuring machine. A significantly higher proportion of hips in the Durom group failed as a result of acetabular loosening (p=0.001) and this was supported by evidence of reduced bone in-growth on the backside of the cup. Comparison of roundness measurement revealed that the Durom hip was significantly lower wearing than the BHR (p<0.05) but the Durom femoral components were subject to significantly greater form errors (p<0.001), the pole of the head being flattened by up to 31 microns. Although the Durom hip is low wearing, reduced sphericity of the femoral component may have resulted in equatorial bearing, leading to an increased frictional torque at the cup-bone interface, preventing bone in-growth, and culminating in acetabular loosening. This supports recent clinical findings of high revision rates as a result of acetabular loosening for the Durom metal-on-metal hip system.

Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Hip Surgery: The London Implant Retrieval Centre Experience

Modern metal-on-metal bearings for hip replacement were reintroduced approximately 15 years ago in order to provide an alternative wear resistant bearing suitable for large diameter hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. Both types of metal-on-metal hip use a thin one-piece acetabular cup for use with either a resurfacing femoral head or a stemmed modular femoral head.