Metal release resulting from taper fretting and corrosion is a clinical concern, because wear and corrosion products may stimulate adverse local tissue reactions. Unimodular hip arthroplasties have a conical taper between the femoral head (head bore taper) and the femoral stem (stem cone taper). The use of ceramic heads has been suggested as a way of reducing the generation of wear and corrosion products from the head bore/stem cone taper junction. A previous semiquantitative study found that ceramic heads had less visual evidence of fretting-corrosion damage compared with CoCr heads; but, to our knowledge, no studies have quantified the volumetric material loss from the head bore and stem cone tapers of a matched cohort of ceramic and metal heads.
We asked: (1) Do ceramic heads result in less volume of material loss at the head-stem junction compared with CoCr heads; (2) do stem cone tapers have less volumetric material loss compared with CoCr head bore tapers; (3) do visual fretting-corrosion scores correlate with volumetric material loss; and (4) are device, patient, or intraoperative factors associated with volumetric material loss?
A quantitative method was developed to estimate volumetric material loss from the head and stem taper in previously matched cohorts of 50 ceramic and 50 CoCr head-stem pairs retrieved during revision surgery for causes not related to adverse reactions to metal particles. The cohorts were matched according to (1) implantation time, (2) stem flexural rigidity, and (3) lateral offset. Fretting corrosion was assessed visually using a previously published four-point, semiquantitative scoring system. The volumetric loss was measured using a precision roundness machine. Using 24 equally spaced axial traces, the volumetric loss was estimated using a linear least squares fit to interpolate the as-manufactured surfaces. The results of this analysis were considered in the context of device (taper angle clearance, head size, head offset, lateral offset, stem material, and stem surface finish) and patient factors that were obtained from the patients' operative records (implantation time, age at insertion, activity level, and BMI).
The cumulative volumetric material losses estimated for the ceramic cohort had a median of 0.0 mm(3) per year (range, 0.0-0.4 mm(3)). The cumulative volumetric material losses estimated for the CoCr cohort had a median of 0.1 mm(3) per year (range, 0.0-8.8 mm(3)). An order of magnitude reduction in volumetric material loss was found when a ceramic head was used instead of a CoCr head (p < 0.0001). In the CoCr cohort, the femoral head bore tapers had a median material loss of 0.02 mm(3) (range, 0.0-8.7 mm(3)) and the stem cone tapers had a median material loss of 0.0 mm(3) (range, 0.0-0.32 mm(3)/year). There was greater material loss from femoral head bore tapers compared with stem cone tapers in the CoCr cohort (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between visual scoring and volumetric material loss (Spearman's ρ = 0.67, p < 0.01). Although visual scoring was effective for preliminary screening to separate tapers with no or mild damage from tapers with moderate to severe damage, it was not capable of discriminating in the large range of material loss observed at the taper surfaces with moderate to severe fretting-corrosion damage, indicated with a score of 3 or 4. We observed no correlations between volumetric material loss and device and patient factors.
The majority of estimated material loss from the head bore-stem cone junctions resulting from taper fretting and corrosion was from the CoCr head bore tapers as opposed to the stem cone tapers. Additionally, the total material loss from the ceramic cohort showed a reduction in the amount of metal released by an order of magnitude compared with the CoCr cohort.
We found that ceramic femoral heads may be an effective means by which to reduce metal release caused by taper fretting and corrosion at the head bore-stem cone modular interface in THAs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,897,333
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,215
of 9,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,092
of 452,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#23
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
