Revision for taper corrosion at the neck-body junction following total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls
- 304 Downloads
The management of the patient with a recalled, modular neck-body total hip arthroplasty can be complex, as it involves a combination of clinical, technical, and medicolegal challenges. Management begins with a thorough history and physical exam, radiographic evaluation, infection workup, and serum metal ion levels. Three-dimensional imaging is obtained based on patient symptomatology and metal ion levels and is used to evaluate for the presence of an adverse local tissue response as well as the integrity of the existing soft tissue envelope. The decision to perform revision surgery is based on a combination of patient symptomatology, laboratory values, and imaging findings. Revision surgery involves the entire armamentarium of femoral revision techniques, and the acetabulum may need to be revised at the surgeon’s discretion. The femoral implant can often be removed without disrupting the femoral bone envelope; however, the surgeon should have a low threshold to perform an extended trochanteric osteotomy.
KeywordsCorrosion Modular neck Revision hip arthroplasty Adverse local tissue reaction
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Mitchell C. Weiser reports that he is a member of the AAOS Biomedical Engineering Committee.
Darwin D. Chen reports personal fees from KCI Acelity, outside the submitted work.
Human and animal rights and informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
(MP4 147434 kb)
(MP4 128810 kb)
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.••Cooper HJ, Urban RM, Wixson RL, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ. Adverse local tissue reaction arising from corrosion at the femoral neck-body junction in a dual taper stem with a cobalt-chromium modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):865–2. Article is of major importance as it was the first to describe the clinical presentation and intra-operative findings of dual taper modular THA corrosion in the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABGII stems. It also identified mechanically assisted crevice corrosion as the likely mechanism of failure in the dual modular stem design.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.•Molloy DO, Munir S, Jack CM, Cross MB, Walter WL, Walter Sr WK. Fretting and corrosion in modular-neck total hip arthroplasty femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(6):488–93. Article is of importance as it confirmed the clinical, radiographic, and intra-operative findings of neck-stem mechanically assisted corrosion in the Stryker ABGII femoral stem.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.•Meftah M, Haleem AM, Burn MB, Smith KM, Incavo SJ. Early corrosion-related failure of the rejuvenate modular total hip replacement system. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(6):481–7. Article is of importance as it confirmed the clinical, radiographic, and intra-operative findings of neck-stem mechanically assisted corrosion in the Stryker Rejuvenate femoral stem.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.United States Food and Drug Administration. Stryker Initiated Voluntary Product Recall of Modular-Neck Stems: Action Specific to Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular Neck Stems. http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm311043.htm Accessed 16 September 2015
- 14.••Yi PH, Cross MB, Moric M, Levine BR, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, et al. Do serologic and synovial tests help diagnose infection in revision hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings or corrosion? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):498–505. Article is of major importance as it outlines the diagnostic difficulty in differentiating PJI in patients with corroded modular neck femoral stems and makes a cutoff recommendations for cell counts indicative of PJI in these cases.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.•Pivec R, Meneghini RM, Hozack WJ, Westrich GH, Mont MA. Modular taper junction corrosion and failure: how to approach a recalled total hip arthroplasty implant. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):1–6. This article is of importance as it provides an algorithm for evaluating patients presenting with corroded modular neck femoral stems.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.•Barlow BT, Assini J, Boles J, Lee YY, Westrich GH. Short-term metal ion trends following removal of recalled modular neck femoral stems. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(7):1191–6. Article is of importance as it provides a timeline for serum ion normalization following revision of a corroded modular neck femoral stem.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.••Kwon YM, Fehring TK, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Cabanela ME, Jacobs JJ. Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with dual modular taper total hip arthroplasty: consensus statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and the Hip Society. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(11):2060–4. Article is of major importance as it provides detailed outlines for stratifying patients with corroded modular neck femoral stems into low, medium, and high-risk patients. It also provides treatment and follow up recommendations for each of these risk classes.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.•Levine BR, Hsu AR, Skipor AK, Hallab NJ, Paprosky WG, Galante JO, et al. Ten-year outcome of serum metal ion levels after primary total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;90(5):512–8. This article is of importance as it establishes expected normal serum ion values out to 10 years of follow up after receiving a modern modular head femoral stem.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.•Kwon YM. Cross-sectional imaging in evaluation of soft tissue reaction secondary to metal debris. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):653–6. Article is of importance as it provides a good review of the available cross sectional imaging modalities and associated findings in the evaluation of the corroded modular femoral stem.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Mitchelson AJ, Wilson CJ, Mihalko WM, Grupp TM, Manning BT, Dennis DA, et al. Biomaterial hypersensitivity: is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:137287.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Metal sensitivity testing and associated total joint outcomes. http://www.aaos.org/research/committee/biomed/BME_SE_2013.pdf. Accessed 30 September 2015.
- 33.•Munro JT, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. High complication rate after revision of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):523–8. This article is of importance as it outlines the complications following metal-on-metal revision.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.•Wyles CC, Van Demark 3rd RE, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT. High rate of infection after aseptic revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):509–16. This article is of importance as it outlines the complications following metal-on-metal revision.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 46.Matsen Ko LJ, Pollag KE, Yoo JY, Sharkey PF. Serum metal ion levels following total hip arthroplasty with modular dual mobility components. J Arthroplasty. 2015.Google Scholar