Biomechanical, morphological, and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Abstract The present revival of hip resurfacing arthroplasty may be related to an increase in early failures owing to the challenging technique of the procedure. Fifty-five retrieved implants were analysed with respect to wear, cement mantle and cement penetration, fracture and head morphology, as well as standard histology. Femoral neck fractures occurred in median after 102 days. The time to failure was shorter for older women. Major deviations from the suggested cement mantle thickness and cement penetration were found. Indications for high trauma during implantation leading to early failure due to weakening of the femoral neck were also observed. Some failures had signs of pseudarthrosis beneath the implant. Four different fracture patterns with different mean survival times were identified. Observed wear was minor with the exception of that due to alignment mistakes (rim loading). The cups were not damaged by the failures. Histological results indicate that avascular necrosis is not necessarily connected with this kind of endoprosthetic surgery. Most of the failures analysed can probably be attributed to the ‘learning curve’ effect, which is an unsatisfactory situation.

[1]  J Bare,et al.  Complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2005, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[2]  D W Murray,et al.  Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[3]  P. Campbell,et al.  Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: a 7-10 year follow-up study. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  H. Amstutz,et al.  Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[5]  J Schatzker,et al.  A study of implant failure in the Wagner resurfacing arthroplasty. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  C. Rieker,et al.  Development and validation of a second-generation metal-on-metal bearing: laboratory studies and analysis of retrievals. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  D. Back,et al.  Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  R. Chiesa,et al.  In vivo wear of three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use. , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  R. Schenk,et al.  Wear Behavior and Histopathology of Classic Cemented Metal on Metal Hip Endoprostheses , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  D. Howie,et al.  Peripheral wear of Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty acetabular components. , 1991, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  D. Howie,et al.  Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. The results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. , 1990, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  P B Pynsent,et al.  Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[13]  I. CastilloOdena Arthroplasty of the hip , 1952 .

[14]  W. Brodner,et al.  Cup inclination and serum concentration of cobalt and chromium after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  H. Amstutz,et al.  Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  M. Hahn,et al.  Undecalcified preparation of bone tissue: Report of technical experience and development of new methods , 2005, Virchows Archiv A.

[17]  P. Campbell,et al.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.