Search

Background: Large-diameter (≥36-mm) metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip replacements have been shown to fail at an unacceptably high rate. Globally, the DePuy Pinnacle prosthesis was the most widely used device of this type. There is evidence to suggest that one of the main reasons for the poor clinical performance of large-diameter MoM prostheses is the metal debris released from the head-stem taper junction-i.e., taper junction failure. The aim of this study was to investigate variation in the as-manufactured finish of the female taper surface and to determine its influence on material loss. We hypothesized that rougher surfaces with higher relative material peaks would be significantly associated with greater taper wear rates.Methods: We analyzed 93 Articul/eze femoral head tapers with a 36-mm bearing diameter that had been used in combination with a Corail titanium uncemented stem. The influence of the surface topography of the as-manufactured female taper surface on taper wear was examined by means of a multiple regression model, taking into account other known variables.Results: We identified great variation in the as-manufactured surface finish of the female taper surface, with a range of measured Ra values from 0.14 to 4.20 μm. The roughness of the female taper surface appeared to be the most important variable associated with taper wear (p < 0.001). The best-fitting regression model, including duration in vivo, head offset, reduced peak height (Rpk) value, stem shaft angle, and bearing surface wear rate, explained approximately 44% of the variation in taper wear rates.Conclusions: We concluded that the roughness of the female taper surface appears to be a significant factor in metal debris release from head-stem taper junctions.Clinical Relevance: This study shows evidence that previously unappreciated variations in manufacturing processes may have a major impact on the clinical outcomes of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been associated with consistently worse implant survival rates than total knee arthroplasty in worldwide arthroplasty registers. The rate of revision and the proportion of revisions performed for unexplained knee pain after either a unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty were studied to assess if there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the numbers of revisions performed for unexplained knee pain differ between these two implant types.Methods: Using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales, we identified 402,714 primary knee arthroplasties (366,965 total knee arthroplasties and 35,749 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties) that were consecutively entered from April 2003 to December 2010. The status of all implants was assessed as of December 2010, at which time 6075 implants (4503 total knee implants and 1572 unicompartmental knee implants) had been revised at a maximum of eight years. Survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment of differences in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and indication for arthroplasty were performed with use of the end points of revision for any reason, revision for unexplained pain, and revision for other reasons.Results: Revision for unexplained pain was more common after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty than after total knee arthroplasty (representing 23% of revisions as compared with 9% of revisions; p < 0.001). The five-year rate of revision for unexplained pain was 1.6% for the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty group and 0.2% for the total knee arthroplasty group. With use of Cox regression, the hazard ratio (HR) for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty relative to total knee arthroplasty with the end points of revision for any reason, revision for unexplained pain, and revision for all other reasons were 2.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.66 to 2.99; p < 0.001), 6.76 (95% CI, 5.84 to 7.83; p < 0.001), and 2.39 (95% CI, 2.24 to 2.56; p < 0.001), respectively. The mean time from primary implantation to revision was similar for both implant types.Conclusions: While more unicompartmental knee implants than total knee implants were revised for unexplained pain, when these revisions for unexplained pain were discounted, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty still had a significantly greater risk of revision from other reasons than did total knee arthroplasty. The revision rate in isolation may not be a reliable way to compare different implant designs and should instead be considered in the context of the reason for failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]