Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 9, pp 2328–2332 | Cite as

Reduced Articular Surface of One-piece Cups: A Cause of Runaway Wear and Early Failure

  • William L. GriffinEmail author
  • Christopher J. Nanson
  • Bryan D. Springer
  • Matthew A. Davies
  • Thomas K. Fehring
Symposium: Complications of Hip Arthroplasty



Despite the clinical success of modern metal-on-metal articulations, concerns with wear-related release of metal ions persist. Evidence suggests metal ion release is related to the effective coverage of the head in the metal shell (the cup’s functional articular arc). A recent study suggests a reduced functional articular arc is associated with increased ion release and the arc is a function of component design, size, and the abduction angle.


The purposes of this study were to (1) measure the functional articular arc in different sizes of currently available one-piece metal shells from several different manufacturers; and (2) compare the functional articular arc of these one-piece metal shells with the 180º arc of conventional hip arthroplasty acetabular components.


We calculated the available articular surface arc for 33 one-piece metal cups using measurements of cup depth and internal cup radius.


The arc of the articular surface varied among manufacturers and generally decreased with decreasing shell diameter. The mean functional articular arc was 160.5° ± 3.6° (range, 151.8°–165.8°), which was less than the 180° arc of a conventional acetabular component.


Our data show certain cup designs are at higher risk for failure as a result of the decreased articular surface arc. This, along with analysis of abduction angles, supports the recent findings of bearing failure with vertically placed implants. Care must be taken when implanting these shells to ensure they are placed in less abduction to avoid edge loading and the potential for early bearing failure.


Wear Rate Articular Surface Acetabular Component Abduction Angle Edge Loading 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Christi Sychterz Terefenko, MS, for her assistance with the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Bhamra M, Case C. Biological effects of metal-on-metal hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:379–384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown C, Fisher J, Ingham E. Biological effects of clinically relevant wear particles from metal-on-metal hip prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:355–369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buergi ML, Walter WL. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the Australian experience. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(Suppl 3):61–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Haan R, Campbell PA, Su E, De Smet K. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1158–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;90:1291–1297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dowson D. Tribological principles in metal-on-metal hip joint design. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:161–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dowson D, Jin Z-M. Metal-on-metal hip joint tribology. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:107–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grammatopolous G, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1019–1024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isaac G, Thompson J, Williams S, Fisher J. Metal-on-metal bearing surfaces: materials, manufacture, design, optimization, and alternatives. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:119–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobs JJ, Skipor AK, Doorn PF, Campbell P, Schmalzried TP, Black J, Amstutz HC. Cobalt and chromium concentrations in patients with metal on metal total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(Suppl):S256–S263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan M, Kuiper J-H, Richardson J. The exercise related rise in plasma cobalt levels after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1152–1157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;92:38–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Webb J, Nargol AV. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1143–1151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee R, Essner A, Wang A. Tribological considerations in primary and revision metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):118–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morlock M, Bishop N, Zustin J, Hahn M, Ruther W, Amling M. Modes of implant failure after hip resurfacing: morphological and wear analysis of 267 retrieval specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):89–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ollivere B, Darrah C, Barker T, Nolan J, Porteous MJ. Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1025–1030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons C, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill H, Murray D. Pseudotumors associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:847–851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schmalzreid TP. Why total hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(Suppl 3):57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams S, Leslie I, Isaac G, Jin Z, Ingham E, Fisher J. Tribology and wear of metal-on-metal hip prostheses: influence of cup angle and head position. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):111–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • William L. Griffin
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Christopher J. Nanson
    • 1
  • Bryan D. Springer
    • 1
  • Matthew A. Davies
    • 2
  • Thomas K. Fehring
    • 1
  1. 1.The OrthoCarolina Hip and Knee Center, The OrthoCarolina Research InstituteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of North Carolina, CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.CharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations