[Mechanisms of damage to metal-on-polyethylene articulating surfaces of total hip prostheses: influence of intra-articulate migration of metallic debris]

Pathological analysis of periprosthetic soft tissue and modes of failure in revision total joint arthroplasty patients

Objectives

Implant failure leading to revision total joint arthroplasty can occur through a variety of different mechanisms which are typically associated with a soft tissue response adjacent to the implant that provide insight into the underlying etiology of implant failure. The objective of this study was to elucidate mechanisms of implant failure as they relate to histological classification and findings of adjacent periprosthetic tissue.

Methods

Histological analysis of soft tissue adjacent to the implant was performed in 99 patients with an average age of 64 years old and grouped into four categories based on the study conducted by Morawietz et al.:Type I (N = 47)Wear particle induced typeType II (N = 7)Infectious typeType III (N = 19)Combined type I and IIType IV (N = 26)Indeterminant typeModes of failure were categorized into five groupings based on the study conducted by Callies et al.: Instability (N = 35), Aseptic Loosening (N = 24), Hardware and/or Mechanical Failure (N = 15), Septic (N = 13), and Other failures (N = 12). We calculated odds ratios and conducted regression analysis to assess the relationship between modes of failure and histological findings as well as modes of failure and comorbidities.

Results

Hardware/mechanical failure was independently correlated with histological findings of anucleate protein debris, histiocytes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and synovitis. Furthermore, hardware/mechanical failure was independently correlated with osteosarcoma as a co-morbidity. Septic failure was associated with histological findings of Enterococcus, granulation tissue, and tissue necrosis as well as comorbidities of Crohn's disease, deep venous thrombosis, lung disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Infection was 5.8 times more likely to be associated with Type II histology. Aseptic loosening was associated with histologic findings of synovitis.

Conclusion

Our findings support the existing literature on periprosthetic tissue analysis in revision total joint arthroplasty which may improve surgeon understanding of the patholophysiological mechanisms that contribute to implant failure and revision surgery.

Transvaginal emergence of a broken cup marker ring 21 years after total hip arthroplasty

Broken cups, wires, and cable systems have the potential to cause complications, and they can migrate into joints, abdominal and thoracic organs. We describe a case of migration and transvaginal emergence of a marker wire from a polyethylene cup.

Retrieval analysis of motion preserving spinal devices and periprosthetic tissues

This article reviews certain practical aspects of retrieval analysis for motion preserving spinal implants and periprosthetic tissues as an essential component of the overall revision strategy for these implants. At our institution, we established an international repository for motion-preserving spine implants in 2004. Our repository is currently open to all spine surgeons, and is intended to be inclusive of all cervical and lumbar implant designs such as artificial discs and posterior dynamic stabilization devices. Although a wide range of alternative materials is being investigated for nonfusion spine implants, many of the examples in this review are drawn from our existing repository of metal-on-polyethylene, metal-on-metal lumbar total disc replacements (TDRs), and polyurethane-based dynamic motion preservation devices. These devices are already approved or nearing approval for use in the United States, and hence are the most clinically relevant at the present time. This article summarizes the current literature on the retrieval analysis of these implants and concludes with recommendations for the development of new test methods that are based on the current state of knowledge of in vivo wear and damage mechanisms. Furthermore, the relevance and need to evaluate the surrounding tissue to obtain a complete understanding of the biological reaction to implant component corrosion and wear is reviewed.

[Should monobloc cemented stems be systematically revised during revision total hip arthroplasty? A prospective evaluation]

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The main reason for revision of Charnley type total hip arthroplasty is socket loosening related to high polyethylene wear and periacetabular osteolysis. In these situations, the monobloc cemented stem is frequently not loosened and it is not clear whether the femoral component can be retained during the revision procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate surface and sphericity damage to the femoral head of a prospective and consecutive series of revision total hip arthroplasties during which the cemented monobloc femoral component has been systematically revised.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed 22 revisions of both components of Charnley type cemented total hip arthroplasties. In all cases, the 22.2 mm head of the monobloc femoral component was made of 316 L stainless steel. The international standard for such femoral heads includes an average surface roughness (Ra) of 0.05 microm, a total roughness (Rt) value of 0.5 microm and a sphericity of +/-5 microm. The mean age of the patients at the time of the index arthroplasty was 51.3 years. The average time to revision was 14.8 years (seven to 25 years). The reasons for revision included isolated socket loosening (12), extensive periacetabular osteolysis without socket loosening (two), recurrent dislocation associated with socket loosening (one), sepsis without implant loosening (one), loosening of both components (one), and isolated loosening of the femoral component (five). Hence, 15 of the 22 (68.2%) femoral components could theoretically have been retained. The surface roughness of the femoral heads was evaluated using a contact-type profilometer. For each head, the apex and two zones, either macroscopically scratched or with loss of the mirror finish, were analyzed. Moreover, the sphericity of the heads was measured using a spherometer.

RESULTS

The stem explanted after recurrent dislocation was analyzed separately as the femoral head had major scratches. The mean Ra and Rt of the series at the apex was 0.029 and 0.876 microm, respectively. The mean Ra and Rt of the series for the macroscopically damaged areas was 0.05 microm and 1.540 microm, respectively. The mean sphericity of the series was 7.2 microm. Hence among the 22 explanted stems, 10 femoral heads (45.4%) had Ra or Rt apex and 18 (81.8%) Ra or Rt scratched area values beyond ISO standards, respectively. Sphericity was greater than +/-5mm for 13 of the 22 femoral heads (59.1%). With the numbers available, the age at the time of the index arthroplasty, the BMI, the time and the reason for revision were not significantly associated with the degree of femoral head damage for both roughness and sphericity parameters.

DISCUSSION

Retaining the femoral component during revision of the total hip arthroplasty including a monobloc femoral component is theoretically an interesting alternative. However, femoral head surface damage occurring in vivo would have lead us to retain severely scratched heads in over 80% of the hips, and heads with abnormal roughness and sphericity values in over 90% of the hips. Bases upon our results, we recommend systematically revising the femoral component during revision THA including a monobloc stem, irrespective of the reason for revision.