Feature Article Free

Metal in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Wear Particles, Biology, and Diagnosis

Derek F. Amanatullah, MD, PhD; Mark G. Sucher, MD; George F. Bonadurer III, BS; Gavin C. Pereira, MBBS, FRCS (Tr & Orth); Michael J. Taunton, MD

Abstract

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been performed for nearly 50 years. Between 2006 and 2012, more than 600,000 metal-on-metal THA procedures were performed in the United States. This article reviews the production of metal wear debris in a metal-on-metal articulation and the interaction of cobalt and chromium ions that ultimately led to a dramatic decline in the use of metal-on-metal THA articulations. Additionally, the article reviews mechanisms of metal wear, the biologic reaction to cobalt and chromium ions, the clinical presentation of failing metal-on-metal articulations, and current diagnostic strategies. Further, the article discusses the use of inflammatory markers, metal ion levels, radiographs, metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound for failed metal-on-metal THA procedures. When adopting new technologies, orthopedic surgeons must weigh the potential increased benefits against the possibility of new mechanisms of failure. Metal-on-metal bearings are a prime example of the give and take between innovation and clinical results, especially in the setting of an already successful procedure such as THA. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):371–379.]

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been performed for nearly 50 years.1 The technical success of THA has led to an ever-increasing demand for this procedure. By 2030, the demand for THA is estimated to grow by 174% to 572,000 per year in the United States alone.2

Patients place even higher physical demands on their new total joints. Initially, THA was intended for elderly, low-demand, arthritic patients, but now THA is being performed in young, high-demand, active patients because of expanding indications. Elderly patients also have higher expectations because they are living longer and maintaining a high activity level well into old age.3

The dominant bearing couple introduced by Sir John Charnley4 for THA was a metal head articulating with a polyethylene acetabular component. Early mechanisms of failure, such as implant fracture, failure of cement fixation, and stress shielding, have decreased because of improvements in implant design, methods of fixation, and materials.5,6 However, failures as a result of osteolysis and aseptic loosening persist. The metal-on-polyethylene articulation itself was producing polyethylene wear particles. These particles created osteolysis through a biologic reaction mediated by receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase and receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase ligand.7,8

The increased enthusiasm for the metal-on-metal bearing couple was founded on the principle of decreasing the amount of wear debris and eliminating osteolysis to increase implant longevity. Wear simulator data suggested that the volumetric wear of metal-on-metal bearing couples was more than 100-fold lower than that of metal-on-polyethylene bearing couples.9 This led to the conclusion that “metal implants seem to be worth considering in patients with long life expectancy.”10 Between 2006 and 2012, more than 600,000 metal-on-metal THA procedures were performed in the United States alone, with a peak in 2008, in which 40% of all primary THA procedures performed in the United States were metal-on-metal procedures.11 A dramatic decline in metal-on-metal THA procedures occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration recalled the Durom acetabular component (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) in 2008 as well as the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular System (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) in 2010.12,13 By 2012, the percentage of metal-on-metal THA procedures had plummeted to approximately 10% of all primary THA procedures performed in the United States.

Reported failure rates for metal-on-metal THA procedures are higher than those for other THA bearing surfaces, and the incidence of revision THA ranges from 1% to 29%, depending on the prosthesis type.14–19 Therefore, in patients undergoing metal-on-metal THA procedures, monitoring for adverse reactions or implant failure is recommended. Physicians must understand the management of metal-on-metal THA along with the underlying mechanisms of wear and the potential pathology. This article discusses the tribology, clinical manifestations, evaluation, and diagnosis of metal wear in THA.

Composition of Metal Bearing Couples

The alloy (ASTM F75, ISO 5832-4) used to manufacture metal-on-metal bearing couples consists of 62% cobalt, 27% to 30% chromium, 5% to 7% molybdenum, and small amounts (≤1%) of nickel, iron, silicon, carbon, and manganese.20 Alloys with more than 0.2% carbon offer superior wear resistance compared with alloys with less than 0.08% carbon.9 Additionally, the way in which an alloy is processed into the final implant affects its wear characteristics. Cast or formed implants have superior wear resistance compared with wrought or shaped implants.21

Production of Metal Debris

There are numerous modes for wear, including adhesive, abrasive, third body, fatigue, and corrosion. In the case of metal-on-metal THA, adhesive wear predominates, although incorrect implant positioning leads to additional wear.22

After initial placement of a metal-on-metal articulation, “bedding-in” occurs, with high wear conditions and particle production. During this time, the metal head wears into the metal acetabular liner until an “optimal contact area” develops, at which point the wear rate reduces as contact stress decreases and lubrication conditions improve.23 The bedding-in period lasts for the first million cycles in wear simulation or the first year after implantation in vivo. The amount of wear produced during the bedding-in period is dependent on radial clearance and sphericity, with more radial clearance and less sphericity increasing the rate of wear during the bedding-in period.24 Surface finish may also affect bedding-in, but metal bearings tend to self-polish over time.

The bedding-in period is followed by a much lower steady-state wear rate that continues for the life of the implant.25 The transition from the bedding-in period to the steady-state phase is a change in the mode of lubrication and friction for a metal-on-metal articulation from a relatively high-friction boundary lubrication phase to a relatively low-friction fluid-film lubrication phase.26 Steady-state wear is directly related to femoral head size. Although linear wear can be reduced by increasing the size of the femoral head, volumetric wear increases linearly. A 36-mm femoral head has nearly double the volumetric wear of an 18-mm femoral head.27

Further, the amount and the location of the bearing contact area correlate with wear. The most effective type of bearing contact is a polar bearing (Figure 1A). A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and steady-state wear, as described earlier. Acetabular component abduction/ inclination greater than 50° increases edge loading and leads to a statistically higher volumetric wear rate (Figure 1B).22 Lack of a fluid-film lubrication phase increases adhesive wear.28 Less than hemispherical acetabular components (ie, the component encompasses less than 180° of the theoretical sphere that predicts its diameter) are predisposed to being placed in excess abduction/inclination and on average produce higher serum metal ion levels.29 An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed during insertion into under-reamed acetabular bone (Figure 1C). A complete lack of radial clearance leads to a total contact bearing (Figure 1D). Both equatorial and total contact bearings lead to friction, seizing, and massively increased wear.30


A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.

Figure 1:

A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.

Corrosion plays a central role in metal ion production. Corrosion and wear act synergistically, leading to even greater metal breakdown in the presence of proteinaceous solutions.31 Tribocorrosion involves a variety of corrosive interactions, including fretting, crevice corrosion, and galvanic corrosion.32 Tribocorrosion occurs during fluid-film lubrication, even when the metal components are not in contact. Tribocorrosion is the irreversible transformation of a material as a result of the simultaneous action of corrosion and wear that takes place in a sliding tribologic contact area.33 In the case of metal-on-metal articulations, the 2 metal surfaces and synovial fluid react to form a tribomaterial. This material has an acidic nanocrystalline structure and consists of metallic and organic constituents that are liberated into surrounding soft tissues.34 Damage to the surface oxide layer increases the susceptibility of the metal-on-metal articulation to metal ion release.35 Corrosion is not exclusive to metal-on-metal articulations and can occur at any modular segment, including the head-neck junction, and it leads to a similar presentation in metal-on-polyethylene articulations.36,37

Composition of Metal Wear Particles

The principal advantage of metal-on-metal articulations is the production of fewer wear particles, leading to reduced osteolysis and aseptic loosening. Overall, the linear wear rate of a metal-on-metal articulation is 20 to 180 times lower than that of a metal-on-polyethylene articulation.38 This is equivalent to more than a 100-fold decrease in volumetric wear.

Metal particles are fundamentally different from polyethylene particles. Metal particles are round to oval, with irregular boundaries, and polyethylene particles are mostly granular or ellipsoidal.39 Metal particles are 10 times denser than polyethylene particles, approximately 9 g/cm3 and 0.9 g/cm3, respectively. The mean size of a metal particle is quite small, less than 50 nm in vitro and 20 to 80 nm in vivo. Polyethylene particles have a mean size of approximately 1000 nm (1 μm). Therefore, 1×1016 metal particles are generated per 1 mm3 volumetric wear of a metal-on-metal articulation, and 1×1013 polyethylene particles are generated per 1 mm3 volumetric wear of a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Clearly, the fundamental premise that metal-on-metal bearing couples could decrease the number of wear particles and decrease wear-related complications was conceptually flawed. Metal-on-metal articulations produce more and smaller particles, creating more surface area per mass of particle than metal-on-polyethylene articulations.40,41

Although metal-on-metal articulations generally produce smaller wear particles, larger, more irregular metal particles promote inflammation and tissue damage.42 Specifically, phagocytosis of large, irregular particles leads to lysosome destabilization in macrophages and cathepsin B-mediated production of interleukin-1ß. This is followed by inflammation and cytokine release along with indirect promotion of osteoclast activity and osteolysis. Phagocytosis of small, round particles does not cause activation of this pathway.42 Thus, the balance between particle size and particle number in metal-on-metal articulations may lead to differing clinical outcomes.

Tribomaterials involve ionic and particulate cobalt and chromium. The relationship and the effects of these 2 forms are unclear. Metal particles are found more frequently in local tissue, whereas metal ions circulate throughout the body and are found in a variety of organs. Metal ions also conjugate with other molecules.43 Cobalt and chromium also have different ionic qualities. Chromium is less soluble and more likely to be phagocytosed, and cobalt is more soluble in serum and is found in greater concentrations in tissue and blood.44

Biology of Metal Wear Debris

Cobalt and chromium ions are considered toxic at high concentrations, and ionic valence plays an important role in the degree of toxicity. Specifically, Cr+6 causes pulmonary epithelial cancer after inhalation, whereas Cr+3 is much more innocuous and is the ion that is released from orthopedic implants.43 Cobalt, however, is considerably more toxic, with systemic effects in metal-on-metal THA implants that include severe neurologic and cardiac manifestations.45,46 Overall, cobalt and chromium particles pose 3 main threats to human cells: genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity.

Although both cobalt and chromium are genotoxic, chromium is slightly more toxic than cobalt. The DNA damage is induced via oxidation. Additionally, cobalt and chromium inhibit DNA repair and cobalt inhibits topoisomerase II.47,48 In patients with a metal-on-metal implant, the leukocytes show a significant increase in the number of chromosomal translocations and aneuploidy cells compared with those in patients without a metal-on-metal implant.49,50 Even at concentrations considered “subtoxic,” cobalt and chromium nanoparticles and ions can cause significant DNA damage.51 However, the clinical significance of genotoxicity is unknown. A Finnish cohort study52 showed no increase in the incidence of any type of cancer in patients with metal-on-metal bearings. The mortality rate in patients with metal-on-metal articulation is equivalent to that in the general population.53–55

Cobalt and chromium particles are cytotoxic, but cobalt is significantly more cytotoxic than chromium. Cobalt causes greater macrophage and lymphocyte death at lower concentrations.56–61 Cobalt induces a hypoxic-like state, with greater oxidative stress and upregulation of hypoxia-regulated gene products.62 Neither cobalt nor chromium inhibits osteoblast activity.63 In vitro, cobalt and chromium particles generated with a wear simulator reduced the viability of histocytes and fibroblasts by 97% and 95%, respectively. In sharp contrast, alumina ceramic particles decreased the viability of histocytes by only 18%, with no effect on the viability of fibroblasts.64 A retrieval study supported these results and found a tumoral calcinosis-like reaction along with necrosis and necrobiosis in histocytes that had taken up metal debris surrounding metal-on-metal implants.65

Hypersensitivity is an overreaction of a specific immune system to an allergen. On the skin, this reaction is characterized by the “wheel and flare.” Metal hypersensitivity is a well-known and common condition, affecting approximately 10% to 15% of the general population. Nickel, which is used in colbalt-chromium alloys that are used to make metal implants, is the most common and potent immunologic sensitizing metal, followed by cobalt and chromium.66 Metal ions themselves are too small to arouse an immune response. These ions react with protein carriers, such as albumin, to denature the protein and form a hapten (ie, the complex between the metal ion and the carrier). Haptens are antigens and are large enough to create a robust immune response.

Those who are sensitive to nickel often have cross-reactivity with cobalt and chromium.67 Patients who react to a hapten, such as chromium-albumin or cobalt-albumin, are actually eliciting an allergic response to the denatured carrier, in this case, albumin. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium denature carrier proteins in similar ways, and hence cross-reactivity occurs.68 Significantly, a higher incidence of sensitivity to nickel has been noted in patients with metal-on-metal THA procedures compared with control subjects, as quantified by lymphocyte transformation testing, although metal-on-metal THA function was independent of nickel hypersensitivity.69 Interestingly, the risk of revision THA is independent of metal hypersensitivity.70

In those with hypersensitivity to nickel, cobalt, or chromium, a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction occurs when small nickel, cobalt, and chromium particles form immunoreactive haptens. The CD4+ T-lymphocytes are presented with a hapten through their interaction with a major histocompatibility complex class II molecule on an antigen-presenting cell, such as a macrophage. The hapten-sensitized CD4+ T-lymphocytes release interferon-γ. Interferon-γ activates macrophages that secrete various cytokines (granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukins) and recruit cytotoxic T-lymphocytes involved in the cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction.71,72

Adverse Clinical Reactions to Metal Wear Debris

Adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions are clinical manifestations that occur as a result of metal wear debris. It is unknown how adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions correlate with the biologic issues of genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity described earlier. Metal allergies are much more common in patients who undergo joint replacement than in the general population of those without an implant. This percentage is even higher in patients with a poorly functioning, painful metal-on-metal articulation.36 However, a study performed in Italy showed no proven cause-and-effect relationship between immunosensitization and poor clinical outcomes.73

The umbrella of adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions includes 2 major subgroups, soft tissue reactions and osteolysis (Figure 2). Soft tissue reactions are also described as aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions. This is a histologic diagnosis that has been used to describe the clinical appearance of soft tissue necrosis and abnormal joint fluid at the time of revision. Willert et al74 took tissue samples at the time of revision surgery in patients with metal-on-metal implants who had persistent or early recurrence of preoperative symptoms and found diffuse perivascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes along with plasma cells and an accumulation of macrophages with or without metal debris (Figure 3).75 Notably, tissues with aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions that contain lymphocytes have a significantly higher mean metal content than aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion-like tissues that contain macrophages.76


Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).

Figure 2:

Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).


Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).

Figure 3:

Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).

Pandit et al18 coined the term “pseudotumor” to describe large cystic lesions first noted in patients who had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The histology of these lesions is similar to that described by Willert et al,74 although the lymphocytic infiltrate was much more diffuse and tissue necrosis was much more extensive.18 Pseudotumors can be quite large and have a varied presentation, including pain, nerve palsy, spontaneous dislocation, and a palpable mass. Since Pandit et al18 first coined the term, pseudotumors have been noted not only in patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing but also in those with metal-on-metal THA implants and even metal-on-polyethylene THA implants.77 The prevalence of these lesions varies, with rates as high as 32% to 61% in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal THA.78,79 In some cases, the tumor is so large and destructive that a constrained liner is necessary at revision because of disruption of the abductors and surrounding soft tissue (Figure 4).80 Pseudotumors and elevated metal ion levels correlate with poor function.81


Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.

Figure 4:

Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.

Osteolysis is loss of bone caused by receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase and receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase ligand–dependent osteoclast resorption of bone. It can be seen on plain radiographs as cystic lesions or radiolucent regions near the femoral and acetabular components.82 Histologic findings in patients with failed metal-on-metal implants as a result of osteolysis and aseptic loosening are similar to those in aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions. Perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates and metal debris were seen in multiple studies, pointing to osteolysis as the bony continuum of the soft tissue manifestations of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions.83–85

Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Algorithms created by the Hip Society provide a good framework for a systematic evaluation of painful metal-on-metal articulation of the junction.86 Physical examination and a through history are essential in the workup of painful metal-on-metal articulation of the junction. Patients who have a symptomatic metal-on-metal articulation present with hip or groin pain. Persistent pain or early recurrence of preoperative symptoms suggests infection or adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions. Patients also may present with a palpable mass or fluid collection near the hip, with or without loss of hip abduction. Catching, locking, or crepitus is also common, so it is imperative to assess hip range of motion. Nerve palsies are uncommon, but assessing the neurovascular status of the limb is essential in any musculoskeletal examination.

Physicians treating patients who have a symptomatic metal-on-metal implant must perform a thorough history and physical examination and obtain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the hip. Infection should be considered, and appropriate laboratory markers must be evaluated. Because serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, and synovial white blood cell count can be falsely elevated in patients with metal-on-metal bearings, these tests have poor predictive value. In these cases, a synovial neutrophil percentage is recommend, and a level greater than 80% is highly accurate in the diagnosis of infection.87

Serum ion concentrations of cobalt and chromium are used for screening and diagnosis, although research has shown mixed results. A retrospective study evaluated the relationship of serum cobalt and chromium ion levels and their sensitivity and specificity in predicting failure of metal-on-metal articulations.88 A cutoff value of 7 parts per billion (ppb), set by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in 2010, had specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 52% in detecting preoperative unexplained failed metal-on-metal articulation in patients with normal imaging results. However, the optimal cutoff value for serum cobalt and chromium levels was 5 ppb, with specificity of 63% and sensitivity of 85%.88 High serum cobalt and chromium ion levels correlate with poor implant positioning, specifically, abduction/inclination angle greater than 55° and anteversion less than 5° or greater than 25°.14,29 These data support the association of implant malposition, wear, and failure. Hence, implant malposition or an elevated serum cobalt or chromium ion level necessitates revision because implant failure is occurring in the symptomatic patient and implant failure is impending in the asymptomatic patient. Langton et al14 showed that cobalt and chromium concentrations were indicators of the performance of metal-on-metal implants. Sidaginamale et al89 also found cobalt to be more reliable compared with chromium and whole blood testing to be a quicker, more accurate representation of systemic exposure compared with serum levels.

If serum metal ion levels are elevated, radiographs should be evaluated for osteolysis and inappropriate component position. If either is found, then revision THA should be strongly considered.86 If the patient does not have osteolysis and the components are appropriately oriented, careful monitoring of serum metal ion levels every 6 months is recommended. In the asymptomatic patient, the track record of the implant also should be considered.

Data conflict regarding head size in relation to metal ion production. Some studies found no relationship between femoral head size and serum metal ion levels in metal-on-metal THA,90,91 although others showed increased serum metal ion levels with 28-mm femoral heads compared with 36-mm femoral heads in metal-on-metal THA.92 Registry data from Australia showed an increased failure rate for metal-on-metal THA implants with a femoral head size greater than 32 mm.93 Modular metal-on-polyethylene THA implants with 36-mm heads have greater corrosion damage to the trunnion compared with 28-mm heads.94 Metal ion production is increased in metal-on-metal THA implants with large femoral heads and short taper lengths.95

The finding of fluid or a soft tissue mass is a strong indication for revision THA. Although measurement of serum metal ion levels is an important part of the standard diagnostic algorithm, as discussed earlier, serum metal ion levels are poor predictors of soft tissue damage.96 In the setting of adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions and pseudotumor formation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a powerful diagnostic tool (Figure 5). The amount of artifact from the implant on a traditional MRI scan is significant. Adjusting the matrix and receiver bandwidth of a clinical MRI scan can reduce 90% of the metal artifact from THA.97 These alterations to a traditional MRI scan produce metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.


T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

Figure 5:

T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

With the use of metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, prospective evaluation of 31 patients with painful metal-on-metal implants found that fluid collections and severe muscle atrophy were the most likely findings, in addition to muscle edema. Metal artifact reduction sequence MRI is useful in diagnosing and monitoring at-risk metal-on-metal THA implants.98 A case-control study showed that although fluid collection, or pseudotumors, could readily be found in patients with metal-on-metal implants, no difference was noted in those with a well-functioning implant vs those with a painful implant. This result called into question the importance of the finding on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.78 Similar results have been reported in the radiology literature, where conventional sequences with 1.5-Tesla clinical imaging showed no correlation between pseudotumor and patient pain.99

A Japanese study on the benefit of ultrasound as a cost-effective means of detecting soft tissue changes surrounding metal-on-metal implants showed promise.100 Hence, a complex cyst or mass (large, heterogeneous, and irregularly shaped) on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound necessitates revision. This finding indicates that implant failure is occurring in the symptomatic patient and that implant failure is impending in the asymptomatic patient.

Observation should be considered only in asymptomatic patients with serum cobalt and chromium ion levels less than 5 ppb, with or without a simple cyst on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound. Yearly observation is suggested because cyst progression has not been observed earlier than 6 months with metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound studies.

Conclusion

Metal-on-metal bearings are a prime example of how a new technology and its potential benefits must be weighed against the possibility of new mechanisms of failure. Metal particles have the potential for genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity, but more importantly, they produce adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions. Patients with metal-on-metal bearings must be monitored closely with physical examination, serum ion measurement, and imaging for pain and complications specific to metal-on-metal implants, specifically, osteolysis and pseudotumor formation.

References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007; 370(9597):1508–1519. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 [CrossRef]
  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 [CrossRef]
  3. Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Sporer SM. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 443:266–272. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000188066.01833.4f [CrossRef]
  4. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip: a new operation. Lancet. 1961; 1(7187):1129–1132. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(61)92063-3 [CrossRef]
  5. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB, Thomsen P, Gretzer C. Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(2):177–197. doi:10.1080/17453670610045902 [CrossRef]
  6. Zywiel MG, Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Schmalzried TP, Mont MA. State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8(2):187–207. doi:10.1586/erd.10.75 [CrossRef]
  7. Holding CA, Findlay DM, Stamenkov R, et al. The correlation of RANK, RANKL and TNFalpha expression with bone loss volume and polyethylene wear debris around hip implants. Biomaterials. 2006; 27(30):5212–5219. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.054 [CrossRef]
  8. Veigl D, Niederlova J, Krystufkova O. Periprosthetic osteolysis and its association with RANKL expression. Physiol Res. 2007; 56(4):455–462.
  9. St John KR, Zardiackas LD, Poggie RA. Wear evaluation of cobalt-chromium alloy for use in a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 68(1):1–14. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.10053 [CrossRef]
  10. Jacobsson SA, Djerf K, Wahlstrom O. Twenty-year results of McKee-Farrar versus Charnley prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S60–S68. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00006 [CrossRef]
  11. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(7):1614–1620. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01220 [CrossRef]
  12. Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(2):430–438. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2547-5 [CrossRef]
  13. Ng VY, Arnott L, McShane MA. Perspectives in managing an implant recall: revision of 94 Durom Metasul acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(17):e100. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01311 [CrossRef]
  14. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV. Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(1):38–46. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.22770 [CrossRef]
  15. Wynn-Jones H, Macnair R, Wimhurst J, et al. Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):301–307. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.579518 [CrossRef]
  16. Bolland BJ, Latham JM, Whitwell D. Hip resurfacing: early failures cause concern. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5632. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5632 [CrossRef]
  17. Glyn-Jones S, Isaac S, Hauptfleisch J, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. Does highly cross-linked polyethylene wear less than conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty? A double-blind, randomized, and controlled trial using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(3):337–343. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.117 [CrossRef]
  18. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):847–851. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20213 [CrossRef]
  19. Steele GD, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Dennos AC, Nadaud MC. Early failure of articular surface replacement XL total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(6 suppl):14–18. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.027 [CrossRef]
  20. Holzwarth U, Thomas P, Kachler W, Goske J, Schuh A. Metallurgical differentiation of cobalt-chromium alloys for implants [in German]. Orthopade. 2005; 34(10):1046–1047, 1049–1051. doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0849-y [CrossRef]
  21. Migaud H, Putman S, Krantz N, Vasseur L, Girard J. Cementless metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age: a comparative study with twelve to fourteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(suppl 2):137–142. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01720 [CrossRef]
  22. Lee RK, Longaray J, Essner A, Wang A. Metal-on-metal bearings: the problem is edge-loading wear. Surg Technol Int. 2010; 20:303–308.
  23. Hu XQ, Isaac GH, Fisher J. Changes in the contact area during the bedding-in wear of different sizes of metal on metal hip prostheses. Biomed Mater Eng. 2004; 14(2):145–149.
  24. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part I. The role of materials. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):118–123.
  25. Tipper JL, Firkins PJ, Ingham E, Fisher J, Stone MH, Farrar R. Quantitative analysis of the wear and wear debris from low and high carbon content cobalt chrome alloys used in metal on metal total hip replacements. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999; 10(6):353–362. doi:10.1023/A:1026473723777 [CrossRef]
  26. Jin ZM, Dowson D, Fisher J. Analysis of fluid film lubrication in artificial hip joint replacements with surfaces of high elastic modulus. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997; 211(3):247–256. doi:10.1243/0954411971534359 [CrossRef]
  27. Maxian TA, Brown TD, Pedersen DR, McKellop HA, Lu B, Callaghan JJ. Finite element analysis of acetabular wear: validation, and backing and fixation effects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; (344):111–117.
  28. Gill HS, Waite JC, Short A, Kellett CF, Price AJ, Murray DW. In vivo measurement of volumetric wear of a total knee replacement. Knee. 2006; 13(4):312–317. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.04.001 [CrossRef]
  29. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(10):1291–1297. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B10.20533 [CrossRef]
  30. Udofia IJ, Yew A, Jin ZM. Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2004; 218(5):293–305. doi:10.1243/0954411041932854 [CrossRef]
  31. Mathew MT, Abbey S, Hallab NJ, Hall DJ, Sukotjo C, Wimmer MA. Influence of pH on the tribocorrosion behavior of CpTi in the oral environment: synergistic interactions of wear and corrosion. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012; 100(6):1662–1671. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32735 [CrossRef]
  32. Gilbert JL, Buckley CA, Jacobs JJ. In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations: the effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993; 27(12):1533–1544. doi:10.1002/jbm.820271210 [CrossRef]
  33. Diomidis N, Mischler S, More NS, Roy M. Tribo-electrochemical characterization of metallic biomaterials for total joint replacement. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8(2):852–859. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2011.09.034 [CrossRef]
  34. Kaddick C, Wimmer MA. Hip simulator wear testing according to the newly introduced standard ISO 14242. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001; 215(5):429–442. doi:10.1243/0954411011536019 [CrossRef]
  35. Wimmer MA, Fischer A, Buscher R, et al. Wear mechanisms in metal-on-metal bearings: the importance of tribochemical reaction layers. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(4):436–443.
  36. Hallab NJ, Messina C, Skipor A, Jacobs JJ. Differences in the fretting corrosion of metal-metal and ceramic-metal modular junctions of total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 2004; 22(2):250–259. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00186-4 [CrossRef]
  37. Mao X, Tay GH, Godbolt DB, Crawford RW. Pseudotumor in a well-fixed metal-on-polyethylene uncemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(3):493. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.015 [CrossRef]
  38. Schmidt M, Weber H, Schon R. Cobalt chromium molybdenum metal combination for modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996; (329 suppl):S35–S47. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00004 [CrossRef]
  39. Baxter RM, MacDonald DW, Kurtz SM, Steinbeck MJ. Characteristics of highly cross-linked polyethylene wear debris in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101(3):467–475.
  40. Doorn PF, Campbell PA, Worrall J, Benya PD, McKellop HA, Amstutz HC. Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 42(1):103–111. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199810)42:1<103::AID-JBM13>3.0.CO;2-M [CrossRef]
  41. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, et al. Quantitative analysis of wear and wear debris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001; 11(2):143–157.
  42. Caicedo MS, Samelko L, McAllister K, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Increasing both CoCrMoalloy particle size and surface irregularity induces increased macrophage inflammasome activation in vitro potentially through lysosomal destabilization mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2013; 31(10):1633–1642. doi:10.1002/jor.22411 [CrossRef]
  43. Keegan GM, Learmonth ID, Case CP. A systematic comparison of the actual, potential, and theoretical health effects of cobalt and chromium exposures from industry and surgical implants. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008; 38(8):645–674. doi:10.1080/10408440701845534 [CrossRef]
  44. Xia Z, Kwon YM, Mehmood S, Downing C, Jurkschat K, Murray DW. Characterization of metal-wear nanoparticles in pseudotumor following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Nanomedicine. 2011; 7(6):674–681.
  45. Mao X, Wong AA, Crawford RW. Cobalt toxicity: an emerging clinical problem in patients with metal-on-metal hip prostheses?Med J Aust. 2011; 194(12):649–651.
  46. Tower SS. Arthroprosthetic cobaltism: neurological and cardiac manifestations in two patients with metal-on-metal arthroplasty. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(17):2847–2851. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00125 [CrossRef]
  47. Baldwin EL, Byl JA, Osheroff N. Cobalt enhances DNA cleavage mediated by human topoisomerase II alpha in vitro and in cultured cells. Biochemistry. 2004; 43(3):728–735. doi:10.1021/bi035472f [CrossRef]
  48. El-Yamani N, Zuniga L, Stoyanova E, Creus A, Marcos R. Chromium-induced genotoxicity and interference in human lymphoblastoid cell (TK6) repair processes. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011; 74(15–16):1030–1039. doi:10.1080/15287394.2011.582282 [CrossRef]
  49. Dunstan E, Ladon D, Whittingham-Jones P, Carrington R, Briggs TW. Chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients with metal-on-metal hip bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(3):517–522. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01435 [CrossRef]
  50. Ladon D, Doherty A, Newson R, Turner J, Bhamra M, Case CP. Changes in metal levels and chromosome aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):78–83. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.010 [CrossRef]
  51. Colognato R, Bonelli A, Ponti J, et al. Comparative genotoxicity of cobalt nanoparticles and ions on human peripheral leukocytes in vitro. Mutagenesis. 2008; 23(5):377–382. doi:10.1093/mutage/gen024 [CrossRef]
  52. Visuri T, Pulkkinenb P, Paavolainenc P, Pukkalad E. Cancer risk is not increased after conventional hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81(1):77–81. doi:10.3109/17453671003667150 [CrossRef]
  53. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement: what does the literature say?J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(2):174–188. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.08.011 [CrossRef]
  54. Visuri T, Pukkala E, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Riska EB. Cancer risk after metal on metal and polyethylene on metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S280–S289. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00025 [CrossRef]
  55. Visuri TI, Pukkala E, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P. Cancer incidence and causes of death among total hip replacement patients: a review based on Nordic cohorts with a special emphasis on metal-on-metal bearings. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006; 220(2):399–407. doi:10.1243/095441105X63282 [CrossRef]
  56. Catelas I, Petit A, Vali H, et al. Quantitative analysis of macrophage apoptosis vs. necrosis induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(15):2441–2453. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.08.004 [CrossRef]
  57. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL. Cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of cobalt and chromium ions on J774 macrophages: implication of caspase-3 in the apoptotic pathway. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12(10–12):949–953. doi:10.1023/A:1012800813662 [CrossRef]
  58. Petit A, Mwale F, Zukor DJ, Catelas I, Antoniou J, Huk OL. Effect of cobalt and chromium ions on bcl-2, bax, caspase-3, and caspase-8 expression in human U937 macrophages. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(11):2013–2018. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.040 [CrossRef]
  59. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J, Huk OL. TNF-alpha secretion and macrophage mortality induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro: qualitative analysis of apoptosis. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):383–391. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00351-4 [CrossRef]
  60. Akbar M, Brewer JM, Grant MH. Effect of chromium and cobalt ions on primary human lymphocytes in vitro. J Immunotoxicol. 2011; 8(2):140–149. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2011.553845 [CrossRef]
  61. Kwon YM, Xia Z, Glyn-Jones S, Beard D, Gill HS, Murray DW. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophages in vitro. Biomed Mater. 2009; 4(2):025018. doi:10.1088/1748-6041/4/2/025018 [CrossRef]
  62. Madathil BK, Lin Q, Hew CL, Mohanty M. Hypoxia-like effect of cobalt chromium alloy micro particles on fibroblasts in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(10):1360–1367. doi:10.1002/jor.21133 [CrossRef]
  63. Andrews RE, Shah KM, Wilkinson JM, Gartland A. Effects of cobalt and chromium ions at clinically equivalent concentrations after metal-on-metal hip replacement on human osteoblasts and osteoclasts: implications for skeletal health. Bone. 2011; 49(4):717–723. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2011.06.007 [CrossRef]
  64. Germain MA, Hatton A, Williams S, et al. Comparison of the cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt-chromium and alumina ceramic wear particles in vitro. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):469–479. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00360-5 [CrossRef]
  65. Doorn PF, Mirra JM, Campbell PA, Amstutz HC. Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S187–S205. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00017 [CrossRef]
  66. Yang J, Merritt K. Detection of antibodies against corrosion products in patients after Co-Cr total joint replacements. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994; 28(11):1249–1258. doi:10.1002/jbm.820281102 [CrossRef]
  67. Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ. Immune response to synthetic materials: sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 326:71–79. doi:10.1097/00003086-199605000-00009 [CrossRef]
  68. Cohen HA. The role of carrier in sensitivity to chromium and cobalt. Arch Dermatol. 1976; 112(1):37–39. doi:10.1001/archderm.1976.01630250009002 [CrossRef]
  69. Kwon JY, Weon JI, Koedrith P, Park KS, Kim IS, Seo YR. Identification of molecular candidates and interaction networks via integrative toxicogenomic analysis in a human cell line following low-dose exposure to the carcinogenic metals cadmium and nickel. Oncol Rep. 2013; 30(3):1185–1194.
  70. Thomas P. Patch testing and hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants: still many open questions. Dermatitis. 2013; 24(3):106–107. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31829796f8 [CrossRef]
  71. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(3):428–436.
  72. Thierse HJ, Moulon C, Allespach Y, et al. Metal-protein complex-mediated transport and delivery of Ni2+ to TCR/MHC contact sites in nickel-specific human T cell activation. J Immunol. 2004; 172(3):1926–1934. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.172.3.1926 [CrossRef]
  73. Granchi D, Cenni E, Trisolino G, Giunti A, Baldini N. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 77(2):257–264. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30445 [CrossRef]
  74. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. Hypersensitivity to wear products in metal-on-metal articulation. Bioceramics in Joint Arthroplasty. 2003; 65–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85763-8_7 [CrossRef]
  75. De Smet KA. Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(2):203–213. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.01.004 [CrossRef]
  76. Lohmann CH, Meyer H, Nuechtern JV, et al. Periprosthetic tissue metal content but not serum metal content predicts the type of tissue response in failed small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(17):1561–1568. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01273 [CrossRef]
  77. Cook RB, Bolland BJ, Wharton JA, Tilley S, Latham JM, Wood RJ. Pseudotumour formation due to tribocorrosion at the taper interface of large diameter metal on polymer modular total hip replacements. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(8):1430–1436. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.009 [CrossRef]
  78. Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, et al. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(4):317–325. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01508 [CrossRef]
  79. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(23):2164–2171. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01884 [CrossRef]
  80. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  81. Kwon YM, Ostlere SJ, McLardy-Smith P, Athanasou NA, Gill HS, Murray DW. “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):511–518. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.030 [CrossRef]
  82. Ries MD, Link TM. Monitoring and risk of progression of osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(22):2097–2105.
  83. Huber M, Reinisch G, Trettenhahn G, Zweymuller K, Lintner F. Presence of corrosion products and hypersensitivity-associated reactions in periprosthetic tissue after aseptic loosening of total hip replacements with metal bearing surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2009; 5(1):172–180. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2008.07.032 [CrossRef]
  84. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1183–1191. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02916 [CrossRef]
  85. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(7):1515–1521. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02641 [CrossRef]
  86. Lombardi AV Jr, Barrack RL, Berend KR, et al. The Hip Society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(11 suppl A):14–18. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30680 [CrossRef]
  87. Wyles CC, Larson DR, Houdek MT, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(5):818–823. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.11.006 [CrossRef]
  88. Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Bandi AS, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(10):1308–1313. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.26249 [CrossRef]
  89. Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Lord JK, et al. Blood metal ion testing is an effective screening tool to identify poorly performing metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. Bone Joint Res. 2013; 2(5):84–95. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.25.2000148 [CrossRef]
  90. Bernstein M, Walsh A, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Antoniou J. Femoral head size does not affect ion values in metal-on-metal total hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(6):1642–1650. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1630-z [CrossRef]
  91. Meyer H, Mueller T, Goldau G, Chamaon K, Ruetschi M, Lohmann CH. Corrosion at the cone/taper interface leads to failure of large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(11):3101–3108. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2502-5 [CrossRef]
  92. Engh CA, MacDonald SJ, Sritulanondha S, Korczak A, Naudie D, Engh C. Metal ion levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a five-year, prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(6):448–455. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00164 [CrossRef]
  93. de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(24):2287–2293. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01727 [CrossRef]
  94. Dyrkacz RM, Brandt JM, Ojo OA, Turgeon TR, Wyss UP. The influence of head size on corrosion and fretting behaviour at the head-neck interface of artificial hip joints. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(6):1036–1040. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.017 [CrossRef]
  95. Donaldson FE, Coburn JC, Siegel KL. Total hip arthroplasty head-neck contact mechanics: a stochastic investigation of key parameters. J Biomech. 2014; 47(7):1634–1641. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.02.035 [CrossRef]
  96. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  97. Toms AP, Smith-Bateman C, Malcolm PN, Cahir J, Graves M. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol. 2010; 65(6):447–452. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.014 [CrossRef]
  98. Sabah SA, Mitchell AW, Henckel J, Sandison A, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in painful metal-on-metal hips: a prospective study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(1):71–76. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.008 [CrossRef]
  99. Chang EY, McAnally JL, Van Horne JR, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings?Radiology. 2012; 265(3):848–857. doi:10.1148/radiol.12120852 [CrossRef]
  100. Nishii T, Sakai T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Ultrasound screening of peri-articular soft tissue abnormality around metal-on-metal bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(6):895–900. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.015 [CrossRef]
Authors

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (DFA), Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, California; New England Baptist Hospital (MGS), Boston, Massachusetts; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GFB, MJT), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GCP), University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California.

Dr Sucher, Mr Bonadurer, and Dr Pereira have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Amanatullah is a paid consultant for Sanofi and has patents with DTPFS and Cool Cut Cast Saw, and his institution receives grants from Stanford University Mass Spectrometry. Dr Taunton is a paid consultant for DJO Global.

The authors thank Dr Chrisoula A. Toupadakis for her adept illustration of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties demonstrating a polar bearing, lack of clearance, equatorial contact, and total contact.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael J. Taunton, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 ( taunton.michael@mayo.edu).

Received: July 10, 2015
Accepted: June 13, 2016
Posted Online: July 27, 2016

10.3928/01477447-20160719-06

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been performed for nearly 50 years. Between 2006 and 2012, more than 600,000 metal-on-metal THA procedures were performed in the United States. This article reviews the production of metal wear debris in a metal-on-metal articulation and the interaction of cobalt and chromium ions that ultimately led to a dramatic decline in the use of metal-on-metal THA articulations. Additionally, the article reviews mechanisms of metal wear, the biologic reaction to cobalt and chromium ions, the clinical presentation of failing metal-on-metal articulations, and current diagnostic strategies. Further, the article discusses the use of inflammatory markers, metal ion levels, radiographs, metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound for failed metal-on-metal THA procedures. When adopting new technologies, orthopedic surgeons must weigh the potential increased benefits against the possibility of new mechanisms of failure. Metal-on-metal bearings are a prime example of the give and take between innovation and clinical results, especially in the setting of an already successful procedure such as THA. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):371–379.]

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (DFA), Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, California; New England Baptist Hospital (MGS), Boston, Massachusetts; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GFB, MJT), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GCP), University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California.

Dr Sucher, Mr Bonadurer, and Dr Pereira have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Amanatullah is a paid consultant for Sanofi and has patents with DTPFS and Cool Cut Cast Saw, and his institution receives grants from Stanford University Mass Spectrometry. Dr Taunton is a paid consultant for DJO Global.

The authors thank Dr Chrisoula A. Toupadakis for her adept illustration of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties demonstrating a polar bearing, lack of clearance, equatorial contact, and total contact.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael J. Taunton, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 ( taunton.michael@mayo.edu).

Received: July 10, 2015
Accepted: June 13, 2016
Posted Online: July 27, 2016

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been performed for nearly 50 years. Between 2006 and 2012, more than 600,000 metal-on-metal THA procedures were performed in the United States. This article reviews the production of metal wear debris in a metal-on-metal articulation and the interaction of cobalt and chromium ions that ultimately led to a dramatic decline in the use of metal-on-metal THA articulations. Additionally, the article reviews mechanisms of metal wear, the biologic reaction to cobalt and chromium ions, the clinical presentation of failing metal-on-metal articulations, and current diagnostic strategies. Further, the article discusses the use of inflammatory markers, metal ion levels, radiographs, metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound for failed metal-on-metal THA procedures. When adopting new technologies, orthopedic surgeons must weigh the potential increased benefits against the possibility of new mechanisms of failure. Metal-on-metal bearings are a prime example of the give and take between innovation and clinical results, especially in the setting of an already successful procedure such as THA. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):371–379.]

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (DFA), Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, California; New England Baptist Hospital (MGS), Boston, Massachusetts; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GFB, MJT), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GCP), University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California.

Dr Sucher, Mr Bonadurer, and Dr Pereira have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Amanatullah is a paid consultant for Sanofi and has patents with DTPFS and Cool Cut Cast Saw, and his institution receives grants from Stanford University Mass Spectrometry. Dr Taunton is a paid consultant for DJO Global.

The authors thank Dr Chrisoula A. Toupadakis for her adept illustration of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties demonstrating a polar bearing, lack of clearance, equatorial contact, and total contact.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael J. Taunton, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 ( taunton.michael@mayo.edu).

Received: July 10, 2015
Accepted: June 13, 2016
Posted Online: July 27, 2016

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been performed for nearly 50 years.1 The technical success of THA has led to an ever-increasing demand for this procedure. By 2030, the demand for THA is estimated to grow by 174% to 572,000 per year in the United States alone.2

Patients place even higher physical demands on their new total joints. Initially, THA was intended for elderly, low-demand, arthritic patients, but now THA is being performed in young, high-demand, active patients because of expanding indications. Elderly patients also have higher expectations because they are living longer and maintaining a high activity level well into old age.3

The dominant bearing couple introduced by Sir John Charnley4 for THA was a metal head articulating with a polyethylene acetabular component. Early mechanisms of failure, such as implant fracture, failure of cement fixation, and stress shielding, have decreased because of improvements in implant design, methods of fixation, and materials.5,6 However, failures as a result of osteolysis and aseptic loosening persist. The metal-on-polyethylene articulation itself was producing polyethylene wear particles. These particles created osteolysis through a biologic reaction mediated by receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase and receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase ligand.7,8

The increased enthusiasm for the metal-on-metal bearing couple was founded on the principle of decreasing the amount of wear debris and eliminating osteolysis to increase implant longevity. Wear simulator data suggested that the volumetric wear of metal-on-metal bearing couples was more than 100-fold lower than that of metal-on-polyethylene bearing couples.9 This led to the conclusion that “metal implants seem to be worth considering in patients with long life expectancy.”10 Between 2006 and 2012, more than 600,000 metal-on-metal THA procedures were performed in the United States alone, with a peak in 2008, in which 40% of all primary THA procedures performed in the United States were metal-on-metal procedures.11 A dramatic decline in metal-on-metal THA procedures occurred after the US Food and Drug Administration recalled the Durom acetabular component (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) in 2008 as well as the ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the ASR XL Acetabular System (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) in 2010.12,13 By 2012, the percentage of metal-on-metal THA procedures had plummeted to approximately 10% of all primary THA procedures performed in the United States.

Reported failure rates for metal-on-metal THA procedures are higher than those for other THA bearing surfaces, and the incidence of revision THA ranges from 1% to 29%, depending on the prosthesis type.14–19 Therefore, in patients undergoing metal-on-metal THA procedures, monitoring for adverse reactions or implant failure is recommended. Physicians must understand the management of metal-on-metal THA along with the underlying mechanisms of wear and the potential pathology. This article discusses the tribology, clinical manifestations, evaluation, and diagnosis of metal wear in THA.

Composition of Metal Bearing Couples

The alloy (ASTM F75, ISO 5832-4) used to manufacture metal-on-metal bearing couples consists of 62% cobalt, 27% to 30% chromium, 5% to 7% molybdenum, and small amounts (≤1%) of nickel, iron, silicon, carbon, and manganese.20 Alloys with more than 0.2% carbon offer superior wear resistance compared with alloys with less than 0.08% carbon.9 Additionally, the way in which an alloy is processed into the final implant affects its wear characteristics. Cast or formed implants have superior wear resistance compared with wrought or shaped implants.21

Production of Metal Debris

There are numerous modes for wear, including adhesive, abrasive, third body, fatigue, and corrosion. In the case of metal-on-metal THA, adhesive wear predominates, although incorrect implant positioning leads to additional wear.22

After initial placement of a metal-on-metal articulation, “bedding-in” occurs, with high wear conditions and particle production. During this time, the metal head wears into the metal acetabular liner until an “optimal contact area” develops, at which point the wear rate reduces as contact stress decreases and lubrication conditions improve.23 The bedding-in period lasts for the first million cycles in wear simulation or the first year after implantation in vivo. The amount of wear produced during the bedding-in period is dependent on radial clearance and sphericity, with more radial clearance and less sphericity increasing the rate of wear during the bedding-in period.24 Surface finish may also affect bedding-in, but metal bearings tend to self-polish over time.

The bedding-in period is followed by a much lower steady-state wear rate that continues for the life of the implant.25 The transition from the bedding-in period to the steady-state phase is a change in the mode of lubrication and friction for a metal-on-metal articulation from a relatively high-friction boundary lubrication phase to a relatively low-friction fluid-film lubrication phase.26 Steady-state wear is directly related to femoral head size. Although linear wear can be reduced by increasing the size of the femoral head, volumetric wear increases linearly. A 36-mm femoral head has nearly double the volumetric wear of an 18-mm femoral head.27

Further, the amount and the location of the bearing contact area correlate with wear. The most effective type of bearing contact is a polar bearing (Figure 1A). A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and steady-state wear, as described earlier. Acetabular component abduction/ inclination greater than 50° increases edge loading and leads to a statistically higher volumetric wear rate (Figure 1B).22 Lack of a fluid-film lubrication phase increases adhesive wear.28 Less than hemispherical acetabular components (ie, the component encompasses less than 180° of the theoretical sphere that predicts its diameter) are predisposed to being placed in excess abduction/inclination and on average produce higher serum metal ion levels.29 An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed during insertion into under-reamed acetabular bone (Figure 1C). A complete lack of radial clearance leads to a total contact bearing (Figure 1D). Both equatorial and total contact bearings lead to friction, seizing, and massively increased wear.30


A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.

Figure 1:

A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.

Corrosion plays a central role in metal ion production. Corrosion and wear act synergistically, leading to even greater metal breakdown in the presence of proteinaceous solutions.31 Tribocorrosion involves a variety of corrosive interactions, including fretting, crevice corrosion, and galvanic corrosion.32 Tribocorrosion occurs during fluid-film lubrication, even when the metal components are not in contact. Tribocorrosion is the irreversible transformation of a material as a result of the simultaneous action of corrosion and wear that takes place in a sliding tribologic contact area.33 In the case of metal-on-metal articulations, the 2 metal surfaces and synovial fluid react to form a tribomaterial. This material has an acidic nanocrystalline structure and consists of metallic and organic constituents that are liberated into surrounding soft tissues.34 Damage to the surface oxide layer increases the susceptibility of the metal-on-metal articulation to metal ion release.35 Corrosion is not exclusive to metal-on-metal articulations and can occur at any modular segment, including the head-neck junction, and it leads to a similar presentation in metal-on-polyethylene articulations.36,37

Composition of Metal Wear Particles

The principal advantage of metal-on-metal articulations is the production of fewer wear particles, leading to reduced osteolysis and aseptic loosening. Overall, the linear wear rate of a metal-on-metal articulation is 20 to 180 times lower than that of a metal-on-polyethylene articulation.38 This is equivalent to more than a 100-fold decrease in volumetric wear.

Metal particles are fundamentally different from polyethylene particles. Metal particles are round to oval, with irregular boundaries, and polyethylene particles are mostly granular or ellipsoidal.39 Metal particles are 10 times denser than polyethylene particles, approximately 9 g/cm3 and 0.9 g/cm3, respectively. The mean size of a metal particle is quite small, less than 50 nm in vitro and 20 to 80 nm in vivo. Polyethylene particles have a mean size of approximately 1000 nm (1 μm). Therefore, 1×1016 metal particles are generated per 1 mm3 volumetric wear of a metal-on-metal articulation, and 1×1013 polyethylene particles are generated per 1 mm3 volumetric wear of a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Clearly, the fundamental premise that metal-on-metal bearing couples could decrease the number of wear particles and decrease wear-related complications was conceptually flawed. Metal-on-metal articulations produce more and smaller particles, creating more surface area per mass of particle than metal-on-polyethylene articulations.40,41

Although metal-on-metal articulations generally produce smaller wear particles, larger, more irregular metal particles promote inflammation and tissue damage.42 Specifically, phagocytosis of large, irregular particles leads to lysosome destabilization in macrophages and cathepsin B-mediated production of interleukin-1ß. This is followed by inflammation and cytokine release along with indirect promotion of osteoclast activity and osteolysis. Phagocytosis of small, round particles does not cause activation of this pathway.42 Thus, the balance between particle size and particle number in metal-on-metal articulations may lead to differing clinical outcomes.

Tribomaterials involve ionic and particulate cobalt and chromium. The relationship and the effects of these 2 forms are unclear. Metal particles are found more frequently in local tissue, whereas metal ions circulate throughout the body and are found in a variety of organs. Metal ions also conjugate with other molecules.43 Cobalt and chromium also have different ionic qualities. Chromium is less soluble and more likely to be phagocytosed, and cobalt is more soluble in serum and is found in greater concentrations in tissue and blood.44

Biology of Metal Wear Debris

Cobalt and chromium ions are considered toxic at high concentrations, and ionic valence plays an important role in the degree of toxicity. Specifically, Cr+6 causes pulmonary epithelial cancer after inhalation, whereas Cr+3 is much more innocuous and is the ion that is released from orthopedic implants.43 Cobalt, however, is considerably more toxic, with systemic effects in metal-on-metal THA implants that include severe neurologic and cardiac manifestations.45,46 Overall, cobalt and chromium particles pose 3 main threats to human cells: genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity.

Although both cobalt and chromium are genotoxic, chromium is slightly more toxic than cobalt. The DNA damage is induced via oxidation. Additionally, cobalt and chromium inhibit DNA repair and cobalt inhibits topoisomerase II.47,48 In patients with a metal-on-metal implant, the leukocytes show a significant increase in the number of chromosomal translocations and aneuploidy cells compared with those in patients without a metal-on-metal implant.49,50 Even at concentrations considered “subtoxic,” cobalt and chromium nanoparticles and ions can cause significant DNA damage.51 However, the clinical significance of genotoxicity is unknown. A Finnish cohort study52 showed no increase in the incidence of any type of cancer in patients with metal-on-metal bearings. The mortality rate in patients with metal-on-metal articulation is equivalent to that in the general population.53–55

Cobalt and chromium particles are cytotoxic, but cobalt is significantly more cytotoxic than chromium. Cobalt causes greater macrophage and lymphocyte death at lower concentrations.56–61 Cobalt induces a hypoxic-like state, with greater oxidative stress and upregulation of hypoxia-regulated gene products.62 Neither cobalt nor chromium inhibits osteoblast activity.63 In vitro, cobalt and chromium particles generated with a wear simulator reduced the viability of histocytes and fibroblasts by 97% and 95%, respectively. In sharp contrast, alumina ceramic particles decreased the viability of histocytes by only 18%, with no effect on the viability of fibroblasts.64 A retrieval study supported these results and found a tumoral calcinosis-like reaction along with necrosis and necrobiosis in histocytes that had taken up metal debris surrounding metal-on-metal implants.65

Hypersensitivity is an overreaction of a specific immune system to an allergen. On the skin, this reaction is characterized by the “wheel and flare.” Metal hypersensitivity is a well-known and common condition, affecting approximately 10% to 15% of the general population. Nickel, which is used in colbalt-chromium alloys that are used to make metal implants, is the most common and potent immunologic sensitizing metal, followed by cobalt and chromium.66 Metal ions themselves are too small to arouse an immune response. These ions react with protein carriers, such as albumin, to denature the protein and form a hapten (ie, the complex between the metal ion and the carrier). Haptens are antigens and are large enough to create a robust immune response.

Those who are sensitive to nickel often have cross-reactivity with cobalt and chromium.67 Patients who react to a hapten, such as chromium-albumin or cobalt-albumin, are actually eliciting an allergic response to the denatured carrier, in this case, albumin. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium denature carrier proteins in similar ways, and hence cross-reactivity occurs.68 Significantly, a higher incidence of sensitivity to nickel has been noted in patients with metal-on-metal THA procedures compared with control subjects, as quantified by lymphocyte transformation testing, although metal-on-metal THA function was independent of nickel hypersensitivity.69 Interestingly, the risk of revision THA is independent of metal hypersensitivity.70

In those with hypersensitivity to nickel, cobalt, or chromium, a cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction occurs when small nickel, cobalt, and chromium particles form immunoreactive haptens. The CD4+ T-lymphocytes are presented with a hapten through their interaction with a major histocompatibility complex class II molecule on an antigen-presenting cell, such as a macrophage. The hapten-sensitized CD4+ T-lymphocytes release interferon-γ. Interferon-γ activates macrophages that secrete various cytokines (granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor, tumor necrosis factor, and interleukins) and recruit cytotoxic T-lymphocytes involved in the cell-mediated type IV hypersensitivity reaction.71,72

Adverse Clinical Reactions to Metal Wear Debris

Adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions are clinical manifestations that occur as a result of metal wear debris. It is unknown how adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions correlate with the biologic issues of genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity described earlier. Metal allergies are much more common in patients who undergo joint replacement than in the general population of those without an implant. This percentage is even higher in patients with a poorly functioning, painful metal-on-metal articulation.36 However, a study performed in Italy showed no proven cause-and-effect relationship between immunosensitization and poor clinical outcomes.73

The umbrella of adverse reactions to metal debris and adverse local tissue reactions includes 2 major subgroups, soft tissue reactions and osteolysis (Figure 2). Soft tissue reactions are also described as aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions. This is a histologic diagnosis that has been used to describe the clinical appearance of soft tissue necrosis and abnormal joint fluid at the time of revision. Willert et al74 took tissue samples at the time of revision surgery in patients with metal-on-metal implants who had persistent or early recurrence of preoperative symptoms and found diffuse perivascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes along with plasma cells and an accumulation of macrophages with or without metal debris (Figure 3).75 Notably, tissues with aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions that contain lymphocytes have a significantly higher mean metal content than aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion-like tissues that contain macrophages.76


Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).

Figure 2:

Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).


Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).

Figure 3:

Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).

Pandit et al18 coined the term “pseudotumor” to describe large cystic lesions first noted in patients who had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. The histology of these lesions is similar to that described by Willert et al,74 although the lymphocytic infiltrate was much more diffuse and tissue necrosis was much more extensive.18 Pseudotumors can be quite large and have a varied presentation, including pain, nerve palsy, spontaneous dislocation, and a palpable mass. Since Pandit et al18 first coined the term, pseudotumors have been noted not only in patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing but also in those with metal-on-metal THA implants and even metal-on-polyethylene THA implants.77 The prevalence of these lesions varies, with rates as high as 32% to 61% in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal THA.78,79 In some cases, the tumor is so large and destructive that a constrained liner is necessary at revision because of disruption of the abductors and surrounding soft tissue (Figure 4).80 Pseudotumors and elevated metal ion levels correlate with poor function.81


Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.

Figure 4:

Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.

Osteolysis is loss of bone caused by receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase and receptor activator of nuclear factor κ-B kinase ligand–dependent osteoclast resorption of bone. It can be seen on plain radiographs as cystic lesions or radiolucent regions near the femoral and acetabular components.82 Histologic findings in patients with failed metal-on-metal implants as a result of osteolysis and aseptic loosening are similar to those in aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions. Perivascular lymphoplasmacytic infiltrates and metal debris were seen in multiple studies, pointing to osteolysis as the bony continuum of the soft tissue manifestations of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions.83–85

Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Algorithms created by the Hip Society provide a good framework for a systematic evaluation of painful metal-on-metal articulation of the junction.86 Physical examination and a through history are essential in the workup of painful metal-on-metal articulation of the junction. Patients who have a symptomatic metal-on-metal articulation present with hip or groin pain. Persistent pain or early recurrence of preoperative symptoms suggests infection or adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions. Patients also may present with a palpable mass or fluid collection near the hip, with or without loss of hip abduction. Catching, locking, or crepitus is also common, so it is imperative to assess hip range of motion. Nerve palsies are uncommon, but assessing the neurovascular status of the limb is essential in any musculoskeletal examination.

Physicians treating patients who have a symptomatic metal-on-metal implant must perform a thorough history and physical examination and obtain anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the hip. Infection should be considered, and appropriate laboratory markers must be evaluated. Because serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level, and synovial white blood cell count can be falsely elevated in patients with metal-on-metal bearings, these tests have poor predictive value. In these cases, a synovial neutrophil percentage is recommend, and a level greater than 80% is highly accurate in the diagnosis of infection.87

Serum ion concentrations of cobalt and chromium are used for screening and diagnosis, although research has shown mixed results. A retrospective study evaluated the relationship of serum cobalt and chromium ion levels and their sensitivity and specificity in predicting failure of metal-on-metal articulations.88 A cutoff value of 7 parts per billion (ppb), set by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in 2010, had specificity of 89% and sensitivity of 52% in detecting preoperative unexplained failed metal-on-metal articulation in patients with normal imaging results. However, the optimal cutoff value for serum cobalt and chromium levels was 5 ppb, with specificity of 63% and sensitivity of 85%.88 High serum cobalt and chromium ion levels correlate with poor implant positioning, specifically, abduction/inclination angle greater than 55° and anteversion less than 5° or greater than 25°.14,29 These data support the association of implant malposition, wear, and failure. Hence, implant malposition or an elevated serum cobalt or chromium ion level necessitates revision because implant failure is occurring in the symptomatic patient and implant failure is impending in the asymptomatic patient. Langton et al14 showed that cobalt and chromium concentrations were indicators of the performance of metal-on-metal implants. Sidaginamale et al89 also found cobalt to be more reliable compared with chromium and whole blood testing to be a quicker, more accurate representation of systemic exposure compared with serum levels.

If serum metal ion levels are elevated, radiographs should be evaluated for osteolysis and inappropriate component position. If either is found, then revision THA should be strongly considered.86 If the patient does not have osteolysis and the components are appropriately oriented, careful monitoring of serum metal ion levels every 6 months is recommended. In the asymptomatic patient, the track record of the implant also should be considered.

Data conflict regarding head size in relation to metal ion production. Some studies found no relationship between femoral head size and serum metal ion levels in metal-on-metal THA,90,91 although others showed increased serum metal ion levels with 28-mm femoral heads compared with 36-mm femoral heads in metal-on-metal THA.92 Registry data from Australia showed an increased failure rate for metal-on-metal THA implants with a femoral head size greater than 32 mm.93 Modular metal-on-polyethylene THA implants with 36-mm heads have greater corrosion damage to the trunnion compared with 28-mm heads.94 Metal ion production is increased in metal-on-metal THA implants with large femoral heads and short taper lengths.95

The finding of fluid or a soft tissue mass is a strong indication for revision THA. Although measurement of serum metal ion levels is an important part of the standard diagnostic algorithm, as discussed earlier, serum metal ion levels are poor predictors of soft tissue damage.96 In the setting of adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions and pseudotumor formation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a powerful diagnostic tool (Figure 5). The amount of artifact from the implant on a traditional MRI scan is significant. Adjusting the matrix and receiver bandwidth of a clinical MRI scan can reduce 90% of the metal artifact from THA.97 These alterations to a traditional MRI scan produce metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.


T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

Figure 5:

T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

With the use of metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, prospective evaluation of 31 patients with painful metal-on-metal implants found that fluid collections and severe muscle atrophy were the most likely findings, in addition to muscle edema. Metal artifact reduction sequence MRI is useful in diagnosing and monitoring at-risk metal-on-metal THA implants.98 A case-control study showed that although fluid collection, or pseudotumors, could readily be found in patients with metal-on-metal implants, no difference was noted in those with a well-functioning implant vs those with a painful implant. This result called into question the importance of the finding on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.78 Similar results have been reported in the radiology literature, where conventional sequences with 1.5-Tesla clinical imaging showed no correlation between pseudotumor and patient pain.99

A Japanese study on the benefit of ultrasound as a cost-effective means of detecting soft tissue changes surrounding metal-on-metal implants showed promise.100 Hence, a complex cyst or mass (large, heterogeneous, and irregularly shaped) on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound necessitates revision. This finding indicates that implant failure is occurring in the symptomatic patient and that implant failure is impending in the asymptomatic patient.

Observation should be considered only in asymptomatic patients with serum cobalt and chromium ion levels less than 5 ppb, with or without a simple cyst on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound. Yearly observation is suggested because cyst progression has not been observed earlier than 6 months with metal artifact reduction sequence MRI or ultrasound studies.

Conclusion

Metal-on-metal bearings are a prime example of how a new technology and its potential benefits must be weighed against the possibility of new mechanisms of failure. Metal particles have the potential for genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and hypersensitivity, but more importantly, they produce adverse reactions to metal debris or adverse local tissue reactions. Patients with metal-on-metal bearings must be monitored closely with physical examination, serum ion measurement, and imaging for pain and complications specific to metal-on-metal implants, specifically, osteolysis and pseudotumor formation.

References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007; 370(9597):1508–1519. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 [CrossRef]
  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 [CrossRef]
  3. Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Sporer SM. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 443:266–272. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000188066.01833.4f [CrossRef]
  4. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip: a new operation. Lancet. 1961; 1(7187):1129–1132. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(61)92063-3 [CrossRef]
  5. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB, Thomsen P, Gretzer C. Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(2):177–197. doi:10.1080/17453670610045902 [CrossRef]
  6. Zywiel MG, Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Schmalzried TP, Mont MA. State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8(2):187–207. doi:10.1586/erd.10.75 [CrossRef]
  7. Holding CA, Findlay DM, Stamenkov R, et al. The correlation of RANK, RANKL and TNFalpha expression with bone loss volume and polyethylene wear debris around hip implants. Biomaterials. 2006; 27(30):5212–5219. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.054 [CrossRef]
  8. Veigl D, Niederlova J, Krystufkova O. Periprosthetic osteolysis and its association with RANKL expression. Physiol Res. 2007; 56(4):455–462.
  9. St John KR, Zardiackas LD, Poggie RA. Wear evaluation of cobalt-chromium alloy for use in a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 68(1):1–14. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.10053 [CrossRef]
  10. Jacobsson SA, Djerf K, Wahlstrom O. Twenty-year results of McKee-Farrar versus Charnley prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S60–S68. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00006 [CrossRef]
  11. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(7):1614–1620. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01220 [CrossRef]
  12. Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(2):430–438. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2547-5 [CrossRef]
  13. Ng VY, Arnott L, McShane MA. Perspectives in managing an implant recall: revision of 94 Durom Metasul acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(17):e100. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01311 [CrossRef]
  14. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV. Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(1):38–46. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.22770 [CrossRef]
  15. Wynn-Jones H, Macnair R, Wimhurst J, et al. Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):301–307. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.579518 [CrossRef]
  16. Bolland BJ, Latham JM, Whitwell D. Hip resurfacing: early failures cause concern. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5632. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5632 [CrossRef]
  17. Glyn-Jones S, Isaac S, Hauptfleisch J, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. Does highly cross-linked polyethylene wear less than conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty? A double-blind, randomized, and controlled trial using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(3):337–343. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.117 [CrossRef]
  18. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):847–851. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20213 [CrossRef]
  19. Steele GD, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Dennos AC, Nadaud MC. Early failure of articular surface replacement XL total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(6 suppl):14–18. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.027 [CrossRef]
  20. Holzwarth U, Thomas P, Kachler W, Goske J, Schuh A. Metallurgical differentiation of cobalt-chromium alloys for implants [in German]. Orthopade. 2005; 34(10):1046–1047, 1049–1051. doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0849-y [CrossRef]
  21. Migaud H, Putman S, Krantz N, Vasseur L, Girard J. Cementless metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age: a comparative study with twelve to fourteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(suppl 2):137–142. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01720 [CrossRef]
  22. Lee RK, Longaray J, Essner A, Wang A. Metal-on-metal bearings: the problem is edge-loading wear. Surg Technol Int. 2010; 20:303–308.
  23. Hu XQ, Isaac GH, Fisher J. Changes in the contact area during the bedding-in wear of different sizes of metal on metal hip prostheses. Biomed Mater Eng. 2004; 14(2):145–149.
  24. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part I. The role of materials. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):118–123.
  25. Tipper JL, Firkins PJ, Ingham E, Fisher J, Stone MH, Farrar R. Quantitative analysis of the wear and wear debris from low and high carbon content cobalt chrome alloys used in metal on metal total hip replacements. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999; 10(6):353–362. doi:10.1023/A:1026473723777 [CrossRef]
  26. Jin ZM, Dowson D, Fisher J. Analysis of fluid film lubrication in artificial hip joint replacements with surfaces of high elastic modulus. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997; 211(3):247–256. doi:10.1243/0954411971534359 [CrossRef]
  27. Maxian TA, Brown TD, Pedersen DR, McKellop HA, Lu B, Callaghan JJ. Finite element analysis of acetabular wear: validation, and backing and fixation effects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; (344):111–117.
  28. Gill HS, Waite JC, Short A, Kellett CF, Price AJ, Murray DW. In vivo measurement of volumetric wear of a total knee replacement. Knee. 2006; 13(4):312–317. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.04.001 [CrossRef]
  29. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(10):1291–1297. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B10.20533 [CrossRef]
  30. Udofia IJ, Yew A, Jin ZM. Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2004; 218(5):293–305. doi:10.1243/0954411041932854 [CrossRef]
  31. Mathew MT, Abbey S, Hallab NJ, Hall DJ, Sukotjo C, Wimmer MA. Influence of pH on the tribocorrosion behavior of CpTi in the oral environment: synergistic interactions of wear and corrosion. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012; 100(6):1662–1671. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32735 [CrossRef]
  32. Gilbert JL, Buckley CA, Jacobs JJ. In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations: the effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993; 27(12):1533–1544. doi:10.1002/jbm.820271210 [CrossRef]
  33. Diomidis N, Mischler S, More NS, Roy M. Tribo-electrochemical characterization of metallic biomaterials for total joint replacement. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8(2):852–859. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2011.09.034 [CrossRef]
  34. Kaddick C, Wimmer MA. Hip simulator wear testing according to the newly introduced standard ISO 14242. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001; 215(5):429–442. doi:10.1243/0954411011536019 [CrossRef]
  35. Wimmer MA, Fischer A, Buscher R, et al. Wear mechanisms in metal-on-metal bearings: the importance of tribochemical reaction layers. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(4):436–443.
  36. Hallab NJ, Messina C, Skipor A, Jacobs JJ. Differences in the fretting corrosion of metal-metal and ceramic-metal modular junctions of total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 2004; 22(2):250–259. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00186-4 [CrossRef]
  37. Mao X, Tay GH, Godbolt DB, Crawford RW. Pseudotumor in a well-fixed metal-on-polyethylene uncemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(3):493. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.015 [CrossRef]
  38. Schmidt M, Weber H, Schon R. Cobalt chromium molybdenum metal combination for modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996; (329 suppl):S35–S47. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00004 [CrossRef]
  39. Baxter RM, MacDonald DW, Kurtz SM, Steinbeck MJ. Characteristics of highly cross-linked polyethylene wear debris in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101(3):467–475.
  40. Doorn PF, Campbell PA, Worrall J, Benya PD, McKellop HA, Amstutz HC. Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 42(1):103–111. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199810)42:1<103::AID-JBM13>3.0.CO;2-M [CrossRef]
  41. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, et al. Quantitative analysis of wear and wear debris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001; 11(2):143–157.
  42. Caicedo MS, Samelko L, McAllister K, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Increasing both CoCrMoalloy particle size and surface irregularity induces increased macrophage inflammasome activation in vitro potentially through lysosomal destabilization mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2013; 31(10):1633–1642. doi:10.1002/jor.22411 [CrossRef]
  43. Keegan GM, Learmonth ID, Case CP. A systematic comparison of the actual, potential, and theoretical health effects of cobalt and chromium exposures from industry and surgical implants. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008; 38(8):645–674. doi:10.1080/10408440701845534 [CrossRef]
  44. Xia Z, Kwon YM, Mehmood S, Downing C, Jurkschat K, Murray DW. Characterization of metal-wear nanoparticles in pseudotumor following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Nanomedicine. 2011; 7(6):674–681.
  45. Mao X, Wong AA, Crawford RW. Cobalt toxicity: an emerging clinical problem in patients with metal-on-metal hip prostheses?Med J Aust. 2011; 194(12):649–651.
  46. Tower SS. Arthroprosthetic cobaltism: neurological and cardiac manifestations in two patients with metal-on-metal arthroplasty. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(17):2847–2851. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00125 [CrossRef]
  47. Baldwin EL, Byl JA, Osheroff N. Cobalt enhances DNA cleavage mediated by human topoisomerase II alpha in vitro and in cultured cells. Biochemistry. 2004; 43(3):728–735. doi:10.1021/bi035472f [CrossRef]
  48. El-Yamani N, Zuniga L, Stoyanova E, Creus A, Marcos R. Chromium-induced genotoxicity and interference in human lymphoblastoid cell (TK6) repair processes. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011; 74(15–16):1030–1039. doi:10.1080/15287394.2011.582282 [CrossRef]
  49. Dunstan E, Ladon D, Whittingham-Jones P, Carrington R, Briggs TW. Chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients with metal-on-metal hip bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(3):517–522. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01435 [CrossRef]
  50. Ladon D, Doherty A, Newson R, Turner J, Bhamra M, Case CP. Changes in metal levels and chromosome aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):78–83. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.010 [CrossRef]
  51. Colognato R, Bonelli A, Ponti J, et al. Comparative genotoxicity of cobalt nanoparticles and ions on human peripheral leukocytes in vitro. Mutagenesis. 2008; 23(5):377–382. doi:10.1093/mutage/gen024 [CrossRef]
  52. Visuri T, Pulkkinenb P, Paavolainenc P, Pukkalad E. Cancer risk is not increased after conventional hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81(1):77–81. doi:10.3109/17453671003667150 [CrossRef]
  53. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement: what does the literature say?J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(2):174–188. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.08.011 [CrossRef]
  54. Visuri T, Pukkala E, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Riska EB. Cancer risk after metal on metal and polyethylene on metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S280–S289. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00025 [CrossRef]
  55. Visuri TI, Pukkala E, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P. Cancer incidence and causes of death among total hip replacement patients: a review based on Nordic cohorts with a special emphasis on metal-on-metal bearings. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006; 220(2):399–407. doi:10.1243/095441105X63282 [CrossRef]
  56. Catelas I, Petit A, Vali H, et al. Quantitative analysis of macrophage apoptosis vs. necrosis induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(15):2441–2453. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.08.004 [CrossRef]
  57. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL. Cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of cobalt and chromium ions on J774 macrophages: implication of caspase-3 in the apoptotic pathway. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12(10–12):949–953. doi:10.1023/A:1012800813662 [CrossRef]
  58. Petit A, Mwale F, Zukor DJ, Catelas I, Antoniou J, Huk OL. Effect of cobalt and chromium ions on bcl-2, bax, caspase-3, and caspase-8 expression in human U937 macrophages. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(11):2013–2018. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.040 [CrossRef]
  59. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J, Huk OL. TNF-alpha secretion and macrophage mortality induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro: qualitative analysis of apoptosis. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):383–391. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00351-4 [CrossRef]
  60. Akbar M, Brewer JM, Grant MH. Effect of chromium and cobalt ions on primary human lymphocytes in vitro. J Immunotoxicol. 2011; 8(2):140–149. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2011.553845 [CrossRef]
  61. Kwon YM, Xia Z, Glyn-Jones S, Beard D, Gill HS, Murray DW. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophages in vitro. Biomed Mater. 2009; 4(2):025018. doi:10.1088/1748-6041/4/2/025018 [CrossRef]
  62. Madathil BK, Lin Q, Hew CL, Mohanty M. Hypoxia-like effect of cobalt chromium alloy micro particles on fibroblasts in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(10):1360–1367. doi:10.1002/jor.21133 [CrossRef]
  63. Andrews RE, Shah KM, Wilkinson JM, Gartland A. Effects of cobalt and chromium ions at clinically equivalent concentrations after metal-on-metal hip replacement on human osteoblasts and osteoclasts: implications for skeletal health. Bone. 2011; 49(4):717–723. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2011.06.007 [CrossRef]
  64. Germain MA, Hatton A, Williams S, et al. Comparison of the cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt-chromium and alumina ceramic wear particles in vitro. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):469–479. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00360-5 [CrossRef]
  65. Doorn PF, Mirra JM, Campbell PA, Amstutz HC. Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S187–S205. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00017 [CrossRef]
  66. Yang J, Merritt K. Detection of antibodies against corrosion products in patients after Co-Cr total joint replacements. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994; 28(11):1249–1258. doi:10.1002/jbm.820281102 [CrossRef]
  67. Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ. Immune response to synthetic materials: sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 326:71–79. doi:10.1097/00003086-199605000-00009 [CrossRef]
  68. Cohen HA. The role of carrier in sensitivity to chromium and cobalt. Arch Dermatol. 1976; 112(1):37–39. doi:10.1001/archderm.1976.01630250009002 [CrossRef]
  69. Kwon JY, Weon JI, Koedrith P, Park KS, Kim IS, Seo YR. Identification of molecular candidates and interaction networks via integrative toxicogenomic analysis in a human cell line following low-dose exposure to the carcinogenic metals cadmium and nickel. Oncol Rep. 2013; 30(3):1185–1194.
  70. Thomas P. Patch testing and hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants: still many open questions. Dermatitis. 2013; 24(3):106–107. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31829796f8 [CrossRef]
  71. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(3):428–436.
  72. Thierse HJ, Moulon C, Allespach Y, et al. Metal-protein complex-mediated transport and delivery of Ni2+ to TCR/MHC contact sites in nickel-specific human T cell activation. J Immunol. 2004; 172(3):1926–1934. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.172.3.1926 [CrossRef]
  73. Granchi D, Cenni E, Trisolino G, Giunti A, Baldini N. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 77(2):257–264. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30445 [CrossRef]
  74. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. Hypersensitivity to wear products in metal-on-metal articulation. Bioceramics in Joint Arthroplasty. 2003; 65–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85763-8_7 [CrossRef]
  75. De Smet KA. Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(2):203–213. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.01.004 [CrossRef]
  76. Lohmann CH, Meyer H, Nuechtern JV, et al. Periprosthetic tissue metal content but not serum metal content predicts the type of tissue response in failed small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(17):1561–1568. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01273 [CrossRef]
  77. Cook RB, Bolland BJ, Wharton JA, Tilley S, Latham JM, Wood RJ. Pseudotumour formation due to tribocorrosion at the taper interface of large diameter metal on polymer modular total hip replacements. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(8):1430–1436. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.009 [CrossRef]
  78. Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, et al. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(4):317–325. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01508 [CrossRef]
  79. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(23):2164–2171. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01884 [CrossRef]
  80. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  81. Kwon YM, Ostlere SJ, McLardy-Smith P, Athanasou NA, Gill HS, Murray DW. “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):511–518. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.030 [CrossRef]
  82. Ries MD, Link TM. Monitoring and risk of progression of osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(22):2097–2105.
  83. Huber M, Reinisch G, Trettenhahn G, Zweymuller K, Lintner F. Presence of corrosion products and hypersensitivity-associated reactions in periprosthetic tissue after aseptic loosening of total hip replacements with metal bearing surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2009; 5(1):172–180. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2008.07.032 [CrossRef]
  84. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1183–1191. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02916 [CrossRef]
  85. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(7):1515–1521. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02641 [CrossRef]
  86. Lombardi AV Jr, Barrack RL, Berend KR, et al. The Hip Society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(11 suppl A):14–18. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30680 [CrossRef]
  87. Wyles CC, Larson DR, Houdek MT, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(5):818–823. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.11.006 [CrossRef]
  88. Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Bandi AS, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(10):1308–1313. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.26249 [CrossRef]
  89. Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Lord JK, et al. Blood metal ion testing is an effective screening tool to identify poorly performing metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. Bone Joint Res. 2013; 2(5):84–95. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.25.2000148 [CrossRef]
  90. Bernstein M, Walsh A, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Antoniou J. Femoral head size does not affect ion values in metal-on-metal total hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(6):1642–1650. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1630-z [CrossRef]
  91. Meyer H, Mueller T, Goldau G, Chamaon K, Ruetschi M, Lohmann CH. Corrosion at the cone/taper interface leads to failure of large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(11):3101–3108. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2502-5 [CrossRef]
  92. Engh CA, MacDonald SJ, Sritulanondha S, Korczak A, Naudie D, Engh C. Metal ion levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a five-year, prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(6):448–455. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00164 [CrossRef]
  93. de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(24):2287–2293. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01727 [CrossRef]
  94. Dyrkacz RM, Brandt JM, Ojo OA, Turgeon TR, Wyss UP. The influence of head size on corrosion and fretting behaviour at the head-neck interface of artificial hip joints. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(6):1036–1040. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.017 [CrossRef]
  95. Donaldson FE, Coburn JC, Siegel KL. Total hip arthroplasty head-neck contact mechanics: a stochastic investigation of key parameters. J Biomech. 2014; 47(7):1634–1641. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.02.035 [CrossRef]
  96. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  97. Toms AP, Smith-Bateman C, Malcolm PN, Cahir J, Graves M. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol. 2010; 65(6):447–452. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.014 [CrossRef]
  98. Sabah SA, Mitchell AW, Henckel J, Sandison A, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in painful metal-on-metal hips: a prospective study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(1):71–76. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.008 [CrossRef]
  99. Chang EY, McAnally JL, Van Horne JR, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings?Radiology. 2012; 265(3):848–857. doi:10.1148/radiol.12120852 [CrossRef]
  100. Nishii T, Sakai T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Ultrasound screening of peri-articular soft tissue abnormality around metal-on-metal bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(6):895–900. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.015 [CrossRef]

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (DFA), Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Palo Alto, California; New England Baptist Hospital (MGS), Boston, Massachusetts; the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GFB, MJT), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (GCP), University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California.

Dr Sucher, Mr Bonadurer, and Dr Pereira have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Amanatullah is a paid consultant for Sanofi and has patents with DTPFS and Cool Cut Cast Saw, and his institution receives grants from Stanford University Mass Spectrometry. Dr Taunton is a paid consultant for DJO Global.

The authors thank Dr Chrisoula A. Toupadakis for her adept illustration of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties demonstrating a polar bearing, lack of clearance, equatorial contact, and total contact.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael J. Taunton, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 ( taunton.michael@mayo.edu).

Received: July 10, 2015
Accepted: June 13, 2016
Posted Online: July 27, 2016

A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.

Figure 1:

A polar bearing leads to proper bedding-in and low steady-state wear as well as fluid-film lubrication (A). Increasing acetabular component abduction/inclination results in edge loading and prevents fluid-film lubrication, increasing adhesive wear (B). An equatorial bearing is created when a thin-walled monoblock acetabular component is deformed at the rim, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (C). A total contact bearing is created when there is no radial clearance, resulting in friction, seizing, and increased wear (D). Black arrows indicate the area of contact between the metal head and the acetabular component. Green and red arrows indicate the clearance available for fluid ingress and egress to establish fluid-film lubrication.


Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).

Figure 2:

Initial postoperative anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip showing a large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (ASR, DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) (A). Anteroposterior radiograph of the left hip 5 years postoperatively showing severe osteolysis of the calcar (B).


Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).

Figure 3:

Photomicrographs showing diffuse peri-vascular infiltrates of T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, and macrophages with or without metal debris. This appearance is characteristic of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (hematoxylin-eosin, original magnification ×4, A; ×20, B).


Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.

Figure 4:

Magnetic resonance image of the left hip showing disruption of the abductor musculature and surrounding soft tissue.


T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

Figure 5:

T1-weighted coronal section from a metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance image showing bilateral pseudotumors involving the gluteus maximus muscle of the left hip and the iliopsoas muscle of the right hip.

References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007; 370(9597):1508–1519. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 [CrossRef]
  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222 [CrossRef]
  3. Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Sporer SM. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 443:266–272. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000188066.01833.4f [CrossRef]
  4. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip: a new operation. Lancet. 1961; 1(7187):1129–1132. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(61)92063-3 [CrossRef]
  5. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB, Thomsen P, Gretzer C. Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(2):177–197. doi:10.1080/17453670610045902 [CrossRef]
  6. Zywiel MG, Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Schmalzried TP, Mont MA. State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8(2):187–207. doi:10.1586/erd.10.75 [CrossRef]
  7. Holding CA, Findlay DM, Stamenkov R, et al. The correlation of RANK, RANKL and TNFalpha expression with bone loss volume and polyethylene wear debris around hip implants. Biomaterials. 2006; 27(30):5212–5219. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.05.054 [CrossRef]
  8. Veigl D, Niederlova J, Krystufkova O. Periprosthetic osteolysis and its association with RANKL expression. Physiol Res. 2007; 56(4):455–462.
  9. St John KR, Zardiackas LD, Poggie RA. Wear evaluation of cobalt-chromium alloy for use in a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 68(1):1–14. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.10053 [CrossRef]
  10. Jacobsson SA, Djerf K, Wahlstrom O. Twenty-year results of McKee-Farrar versus Charnley prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S60–S68. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00006 [CrossRef]
  11. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(7):1614–1620. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01220 [CrossRef]
  12. Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The withdrawn ASR THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(2):430–438. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2547-5 [CrossRef]
  13. Ng VY, Arnott L, McShane MA. Perspectives in managing an implant recall: revision of 94 Durom Metasul acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(17):e100. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01311 [CrossRef]
  14. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV. Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: a consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(1):38–46. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.22770 [CrossRef]
  15. Wynn-Jones H, Macnair R, Wimhurst J, et al. Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):301–307. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.579518 [CrossRef]
  16. Bolland BJ, Latham JM, Whitwell D. Hip resurfacing: early failures cause concern. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5632. doi:10.1136/bmj.c5632 [CrossRef]
  17. Glyn-Jones S, Isaac S, Hauptfleisch J, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. Does highly cross-linked polyethylene wear less than conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty? A double-blind, randomized, and controlled trial using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(3):337–343. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.117 [CrossRef]
  18. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):847–851. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20213 [CrossRef]
  19. Steele GD, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Dennos AC, Nadaud MC. Early failure of articular surface replacement XL total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(6 suppl):14–18. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.027 [CrossRef]
  20. Holzwarth U, Thomas P, Kachler W, Goske J, Schuh A. Metallurgical differentiation of cobalt-chromium alloys for implants [in German]. Orthopade. 2005; 34(10):1046–1047, 1049–1051. doi:10.1007/s00132-005-0849-y [CrossRef]
  21. Migaud H, Putman S, Krantz N, Vasseur L, Girard J. Cementless metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age: a comparative study with twelve to fourteen-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(suppl 2):137–142. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01720 [CrossRef]
  22. Lee RK, Longaray J, Essner A, Wang A. Metal-on-metal bearings: the problem is edge-loading wear. Surg Technol Int. 2010; 20:303–308.
  23. Hu XQ, Isaac GH, Fisher J. Changes in the contact area during the bedding-in wear of different sizes of metal on metal hip prostheses. Biomed Mater Eng. 2004; 14(2):145–149.
  24. Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part I. The role of materials. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):118–123.
  25. Tipper JL, Firkins PJ, Ingham E, Fisher J, Stone MH, Farrar R. Quantitative analysis of the wear and wear debris from low and high carbon content cobalt chrome alloys used in metal on metal total hip replacements. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999; 10(6):353–362. doi:10.1023/A:1026473723777 [CrossRef]
  26. Jin ZM, Dowson D, Fisher J. Analysis of fluid film lubrication in artificial hip joint replacements with surfaces of high elastic modulus. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1997; 211(3):247–256. doi:10.1243/0954411971534359 [CrossRef]
  27. Maxian TA, Brown TD, Pedersen DR, McKellop HA, Lu B, Callaghan JJ. Finite element analysis of acetabular wear: validation, and backing and fixation effects. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; (344):111–117.
  28. Gill HS, Waite JC, Short A, Kellett CF, Price AJ, Murray DW. In vivo measurement of volumetric wear of a total knee replacement. Knee. 2006; 13(4):312–317. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.04.001 [CrossRef]
  29. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(10):1291–1297. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B10.20533 [CrossRef]
  30. Udofia IJ, Yew A, Jin ZM. Contact mechanics analysis of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2004; 218(5):293–305. doi:10.1243/0954411041932854 [CrossRef]
  31. Mathew MT, Abbey S, Hallab NJ, Hall DJ, Sukotjo C, Wimmer MA. Influence of pH on the tribocorrosion behavior of CpTi in the oral environment: synergistic interactions of wear and corrosion. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012; 100(6):1662–1671. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.32735 [CrossRef]
  32. Gilbert JL, Buckley CA, Jacobs JJ. In vivo corrosion of modular hip prosthesis components in mixed and similar metal combinations: the effect of crevice, stress, motion, and alloy coupling. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993; 27(12):1533–1544. doi:10.1002/jbm.820271210 [CrossRef]
  33. Diomidis N, Mischler S, More NS, Roy M. Tribo-electrochemical characterization of metallic biomaterials for total joint replacement. Acta Biomater. 2012; 8(2):852–859. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2011.09.034 [CrossRef]
  34. Kaddick C, Wimmer MA. Hip simulator wear testing according to the newly introduced standard ISO 14242. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001; 215(5):429–442. doi:10.1243/0954411011536019 [CrossRef]
  35. Wimmer MA, Fischer A, Buscher R, et al. Wear mechanisms in metal-on-metal bearings: the importance of tribochemical reaction layers. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(4):436–443.
  36. Hallab NJ, Messina C, Skipor A, Jacobs JJ. Differences in the fretting corrosion of metal-metal and ceramic-metal modular junctions of total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 2004; 22(2):250–259. doi:10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00186-4 [CrossRef]
  37. Mao X, Tay GH, Godbolt DB, Crawford RW. Pseudotumor in a well-fixed metal-on-polyethylene uncemented hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(3):493. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.015 [CrossRef]
  38. Schmidt M, Weber H, Schon R. Cobalt chromium molybdenum metal combination for modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996; (329 suppl):S35–S47. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00004 [CrossRef]
  39. Baxter RM, MacDonald DW, Kurtz SM, Steinbeck MJ. Characteristics of highly cross-linked polyethylene wear debris in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013; 101(3):467–475.
  40. Doorn PF, Campbell PA, Worrall J, Benya PD, McKellop HA, Amstutz HC. Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 42(1):103–111. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199810)42:1<103::AID-JBM13>3.0.CO;2-M [CrossRef]
  41. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, et al. Quantitative analysis of wear and wear debris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001; 11(2):143–157.
  42. Caicedo MS, Samelko L, McAllister K, Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Increasing both CoCrMoalloy particle size and surface irregularity induces increased macrophage inflammasome activation in vitro potentially through lysosomal destabilization mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2013; 31(10):1633–1642. doi:10.1002/jor.22411 [CrossRef]
  43. Keegan GM, Learmonth ID, Case CP. A systematic comparison of the actual, potential, and theoretical health effects of cobalt and chromium exposures from industry and surgical implants. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2008; 38(8):645–674. doi:10.1080/10408440701845534 [CrossRef]
  44. Xia Z, Kwon YM, Mehmood S, Downing C, Jurkschat K, Murray DW. Characterization of metal-wear nanoparticles in pseudotumor following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Nanomedicine. 2011; 7(6):674–681.
  45. Mao X, Wong AA, Crawford RW. Cobalt toxicity: an emerging clinical problem in patients with metal-on-metal hip prostheses?Med J Aust. 2011; 194(12):649–651.
  46. Tower SS. Arthroprosthetic cobaltism: neurological and cardiac manifestations in two patients with metal-on-metal arthroplasty. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(17):2847–2851. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00125 [CrossRef]
  47. Baldwin EL, Byl JA, Osheroff N. Cobalt enhances DNA cleavage mediated by human topoisomerase II alpha in vitro and in cultured cells. Biochemistry. 2004; 43(3):728–735. doi:10.1021/bi035472f [CrossRef]
  48. El-Yamani N, Zuniga L, Stoyanova E, Creus A, Marcos R. Chromium-induced genotoxicity and interference in human lymphoblastoid cell (TK6) repair processes. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011; 74(15–16):1030–1039. doi:10.1080/15287394.2011.582282 [CrossRef]
  49. Dunstan E, Ladon D, Whittingham-Jones P, Carrington R, Briggs TW. Chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients with metal-on-metal hip bearings. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90(3):517–522. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01435 [CrossRef]
  50. Ladon D, Doherty A, Newson R, Turner J, Bhamra M, Case CP. Changes in metal levels and chromosome aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(8 suppl 3):78–83. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.010 [CrossRef]
  51. Colognato R, Bonelli A, Ponti J, et al. Comparative genotoxicity of cobalt nanoparticles and ions on human peripheral leukocytes in vitro. Mutagenesis. 2008; 23(5):377–382. doi:10.1093/mutage/gen024 [CrossRef]
  52. Visuri T, Pulkkinenb P, Paavolainenc P, Pukkalad E. Cancer risk is not increased after conventional hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81(1):77–81. doi:10.3109/17453671003667150 [CrossRef]
  53. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement: what does the literature say?J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(2):174–188. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.08.011 [CrossRef]
  54. Visuri T, Pukkala E, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Riska EB. Cancer risk after metal on metal and polyethylene on metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S280–S289. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00025 [CrossRef]
  55. Visuri TI, Pukkala E, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P. Cancer incidence and causes of death among total hip replacement patients: a review based on Nordic cohorts with a special emphasis on metal-on-metal bearings. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006; 220(2):399–407. doi:10.1243/095441105X63282 [CrossRef]
  56. Catelas I, Petit A, Vali H, et al. Quantitative analysis of macrophage apoptosis vs. necrosis induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro. Biomaterials. 2005; 26(15):2441–2453. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.08.004 [CrossRef]
  57. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL. Cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of cobalt and chromium ions on J774 macrophages: implication of caspase-3 in the apoptotic pathway. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12(10–12):949–953. doi:10.1023/A:1012800813662 [CrossRef]
  58. Petit A, Mwale F, Zukor DJ, Catelas I, Antoniou J, Huk OL. Effect of cobalt and chromium ions on bcl-2, bax, caspase-3, and caspase-8 expression in human U937 macrophages. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(11):2013–2018. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.040 [CrossRef]
  59. Catelas I, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Antoniou J, Huk OL. TNF-alpha secretion and macrophage mortality induced by cobalt and chromium ions in vitro: qualitative analysis of apoptosis. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):383–391. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00351-4 [CrossRef]
  60. Akbar M, Brewer JM, Grant MH. Effect of chromium and cobalt ions on primary human lymphocytes in vitro. J Immunotoxicol. 2011; 8(2):140–149. doi:10.3109/1547691X.2011.553845 [CrossRef]
  61. Kwon YM, Xia Z, Glyn-Jones S, Beard D, Gill HS, Murray DW. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophages in vitro. Biomed Mater. 2009; 4(2):025018. doi:10.1088/1748-6041/4/2/025018 [CrossRef]
  62. Madathil BK, Lin Q, Hew CL, Mohanty M. Hypoxia-like effect of cobalt chromium alloy micro particles on fibroblasts in vitro. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28(10):1360–1367. doi:10.1002/jor.21133 [CrossRef]
  63. Andrews RE, Shah KM, Wilkinson JM, Gartland A. Effects of cobalt and chromium ions at clinically equivalent concentrations after metal-on-metal hip replacement on human osteoblasts and osteoclasts: implications for skeletal health. Bone. 2011; 49(4):717–723. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2011.06.007 [CrossRef]
  64. Germain MA, Hatton A, Williams S, et al. Comparison of the cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt-chromium and alumina ceramic wear particles in vitro. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(3):469–479. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(02)00360-5 [CrossRef]
  65. Doorn PF, Mirra JM, Campbell PA, Amstutz HC. Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 329(suppl):S187–S205. doi:10.1097/00003086-199608001-00017 [CrossRef]
  66. Yang J, Merritt K. Detection of antibodies against corrosion products in patients after Co-Cr total joint replacements. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994; 28(11):1249–1258. doi:10.1002/jbm.820281102 [CrossRef]
  67. Merritt K, Rodrigo JJ. Immune response to synthetic materials: sensitization of patients receiving orthopaedic implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 326:71–79. doi:10.1097/00003086-199605000-00009 [CrossRef]
  68. Cohen HA. The role of carrier in sensitivity to chromium and cobalt. Arch Dermatol. 1976; 112(1):37–39. doi:10.1001/archderm.1976.01630250009002 [CrossRef]
  69. Kwon JY, Weon JI, Koedrith P, Park KS, Kim IS, Seo YR. Identification of molecular candidates and interaction networks via integrative toxicogenomic analysis in a human cell line following low-dose exposure to the carcinogenic metals cadmium and nickel. Oncol Rep. 2013; 30(3):1185–1194.
  70. Thomas P. Patch testing and hypersensitivity reactions to metallic implants: still many open questions. Dermatitis. 2013; 24(3):106–107. doi:10.1097/DER.0b013e31829796f8 [CrossRef]
  71. Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(3):428–436.
  72. Thierse HJ, Moulon C, Allespach Y, et al. Metal-protein complex-mediated transport and delivery of Ni2+ to TCR/MHC contact sites in nickel-specific human T cell activation. J Immunol. 2004; 172(3):1926–1934. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.172.3.1926 [CrossRef]
  73. Granchi D, Cenni E, Trisolino G, Giunti A, Baldini N. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006; 77(2):257–264. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30445 [CrossRef]
  74. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. Hypersensitivity to wear products in metal-on-metal articulation. Bioceramics in Joint Arthroplasty. 2003; 65–72. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85763-8_7 [CrossRef]
  75. De Smet KA. Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(2):203–213. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.01.004 [CrossRef]
  76. Lohmann CH, Meyer H, Nuechtern JV, et al. Periprosthetic tissue metal content but not serum metal content predicts the type of tissue response in failed small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(17):1561–1568. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01273 [CrossRef]
  77. Cook RB, Bolland BJ, Wharton JA, Tilley S, Latham JM, Wood RJ. Pseudotumour formation due to tribocorrosion at the taper interface of large diameter metal on polymer modular total hip replacements. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(8):1430–1436. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.009 [CrossRef]
  78. Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, et al. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(4):317–325. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01508 [CrossRef]
  79. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(23):2164–2171. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01884 [CrossRef]
  80. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  81. Kwon YM, Ostlere SJ, McLardy-Smith P, Athanasou NA, Gill HS, Murray DW. “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):511–518. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.030 [CrossRef]
  82. Ries MD, Link TM. Monitoring and risk of progression of osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(22):2097–2105.
  83. Huber M, Reinisch G, Trettenhahn G, Zweymuller K, Lintner F. Presence of corrosion products and hypersensitivity-associated reactions in periprosthetic tissue after aseptic loosening of total hip replacements with metal bearing surfaces. Acta Biomater. 2009; 5(1):172–180. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2008.07.032 [CrossRef]
  84. Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(6):1183–1191. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02916 [CrossRef]
  85. Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(7):1515–1521. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02641 [CrossRef]
  86. Lombardi AV Jr, Barrack RL, Berend KR, et al. The Hip Society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(11 suppl A):14–18. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30680 [CrossRef]
  87. Wyles CC, Larson DR, Houdek MT, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(5):818–823. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.11.006 [CrossRef]
  88. Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Bandi AS, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(10):1308–1313. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B10.26249 [CrossRef]
  89. Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Lord JK, et al. Blood metal ion testing is an effective screening tool to identify poorly performing metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. Bone Joint Res. 2013; 2(5):84–95. doi:10.1302/2046-3758.25.2000148 [CrossRef]
  90. Bernstein M, Walsh A, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Antoniou J. Femoral head size does not affect ion values in metal-on-metal total hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(6):1642–1650. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1630-z [CrossRef]
  91. Meyer H, Mueller T, Goldau G, Chamaon K, Ruetschi M, Lohmann CH. Corrosion at the cone/taper interface leads to failure of large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(11):3101–3108. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2502-5 [CrossRef]
  92. Engh CA, MacDonald SJ, Sritulanondha S, Korczak A, Naudie D, Engh C. Metal ion levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a five-year, prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(6):448–455. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00164 [CrossRef]
  93. de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(24):2287–2293. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01727 [CrossRef]
  94. Dyrkacz RM, Brandt JM, Ojo OA, Turgeon TR, Wyss UP. The influence of head size on corrosion and fretting behaviour at the head-neck interface of artificial hip joints. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(6):1036–1040. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.10.017 [CrossRef]
  95. Donaldson FE, Coburn JC, Siegel KL. Total hip arthroplasty head-neck contact mechanics: a stochastic investigation of key parameters. J Biomech. 2014; 47(7):1634–1641. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.02.035 [CrossRef]
  96. Griffin JW, D'Apuzzo M, Browne JA. Management of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthop. 2012; 3(6):70–74. doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i6.70 [CrossRef]
  97. Toms AP, Smith-Bateman C, Malcolm PN, Cahir J, Graves M. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol. 2010; 65(6):447–452. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.12.014 [CrossRef]
  98. Sabah SA, Mitchell AW, Henckel J, Sandison A, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in painful metal-on-metal hips: a prospective study. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(1):71–76. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.008 [CrossRef]
  99. Chang EY, McAnally JL, Van Horne JR, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings?Radiology. 2012; 265(3):848–857. doi:10.1148/radiol.12120852 [CrossRef]
  100. Nishii T, Sakai T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Ultrasound screening of peri-articular soft tissue abnormality around metal-on-metal bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(6):895–900. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.015 [CrossRef]
This Article