Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 67–73 | Cite as

Premature Failure in Orthopedic Implants: Analysis of Three Different Cases

  • C. Barbosa
  • J. L. do Nascimento
  • I. M. V. Caminha
  • I. C. Abud
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

The increasing lifetime of the population on a world-wide scale over the last decades has led to a significant growth in the use of surgical implants for replacement of bones and teeth in affected patients. Other factors, such as scientific-technological development and more frequent exposure of individuals to trauma risk, have also contributed to this general trend. Metallic materials designed for applications in surgical implants, no matter whether orthopedic or dental, must show a group of properties in which biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and resistance to degradation (by wear or corrosion) are of primary importance. In order to reach these aims, orthopedic materials must fulfill certain requirements, usually specified in standards. These requirements include chemical composition, microstructure, and even macrographic appearances. In the present work, three cases of implant failure are presented. These cases demonstrate the most frequent causes of premature failure in orthopedic implants: inadequate surgical procedures and processing/design errors. Evaluation techniques, including optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), were used to evaluate macroscopic and microstructural aspects of the failed implants, and the chemical composition of each material was analyzed. These evaluations showed that design errors and improper surgical procedures of outright violation of standards were the cause of the failures.

Keywords

Failure analysis Implant degradation Microscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    Disegi, J.A., Eschbach, L.: Stainless steel in bone surgery. Injury 31, S-D2–6 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azevedo, C.R.F., Hippert Jr, E.: Failure analysis of surgical implants in Brazil. Eng Fail. Anal. 9, 621–633 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, K.: The use of titanium for medical applications in the USA. Mater Sci. Eng. A 213, 134–137 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fini, M., Aldini, N.N., Torricelli, P., Giavaresi, G., Borsari, V., Lenger, H., Bernauer, J., Giardino, R., Chiesa, R., Cigada, A.: A new austenitic stainless steel with negligible nickel content: an in vitro and in vivo comparative investigation. Biomaterials 24, 4929–4939 (2003)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wouters, R., Froyen, L.: Scanning electron microscope fractography in failure analysis of steels. Mater Charact. 36, 357–364 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Failure Analysis and Prevention, vol. 1, 9th ed., Metals Handbook, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, (1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 5832–1 standard, “Implants for surgery—Metallic materials—Part 1: Wrought stainless steel,” International Standards Organization (ISO) (1997).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gaebler, C., Stanzl-Tschegg, S., Tschegg, E.K., Kukla, C., Menth-Chiari, W.A., Wozasek, G.E., Heinz, T.: Implant failure of the gamma nail. Injury 30, 91–99 (1999)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haynes, R.C., Pöll, R.G., Miles, A.W., Weston, R.B.: Failure of femoral head fixation: a cadaveric analysis of lag screw cut-out with the gamma locking nail and AO dynamic hip screw. Injury 28, 337–341 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haynes, R.C., Pöll, R.G., Miles, A.W., Weston, R.B.: An experimental study of the failure modes of the Gamma Locking Nail and AO Dynamic Hip Screw under static loading: a cadaveric study. Med Eng. Phys. 19, 446–453 (1997)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Barbosa
    • 1
  • J. L. do Nascimento
    • 1
  • I. M. V. Caminha
    • 1
  • I. C. Abud
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia (INT)Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations