BACKGROUND: Material loss at the taper junction of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties has been implicated in their early failure. The mechanisms of material loss are not fully understood; analysis of the patterns of damage at the taper can help us better understand why material loss occurs at this junction. METHODS: We mapped the patterns of material loss in a series of 155 metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties received at our center by scanning the taper surface using a roundness-measuring machine. We examined these material loss maps to develop a 5-tier classification system based on visual differences between different patterns. We correlated these patterns to surgical, implant, and patient factors known to be important for head-stem taper damage. RESULTS: We found that 63 implants had "minimal damage" at the taper (material loss <1 mm3), and the remaining 92 implants could be categorized by 4 distinct patterns of taper material loss. We found that (1) head diameter and (2) time to revision were key significant variables separating the groups. CONCLUSION: These material loss maps allow us to suggest different mechanisms that dominate the cause of the material loss in each pattern: (1) corrosion, (2) mechanically assisted corrosion, or (3) intraoperative damage or poor size tolerances leading to toggling of trunnion in taper.
BACKGROUND: Material loss at the taper junction of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties has been implicated in their early failure. The mechanisms of material loss are not fully understood; analysis of the patterns of damage at the taper can help us better understand why material loss occurs at this junction. METHODS: We mapped the patterns of material loss in a series of 155 metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties received at our center by scanning the taper surface using a roundness-measuring machine. We examined these material loss maps to develop a 5-tier classification system based on visual differences between different patterns. We correlated these patterns to surgical, implant, and patient factors known to be important for head-stem taper damage. RESULTS: We found that 63 implants had "minimal damage" at the taper (material loss <1 mm3), and the remaining 92 implants could be categorized by 4 distinct patterns of taper material loss. We found that (1) head diameter and (2) time to revision were key significant variables separating the groups. CONCLUSION: These material loss maps allow us to suggest different mechanisms that dominate the cause of the material loss in each pattern: (1) corrosion, (2) mechanically assisted corrosion, or (3) intraoperative damage or poor size tolerances leading to toggling of trunnion in taper.
Authors: Jack Z Wei; Harry S Hothi; Holly Morganti; Sean Bergiers; Elisabetta Dal Gal; Doris Likcani; Johann Henckel; Alister J Hart Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.362