Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Aug;90 Suppl 3:89-95. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00621.

Modes of implant failure after hip resurfacing: morphological and wear analysis of 267 retrieval specimens.

Author information

Biomechanics Section, TUHH Hamburg University of Technology, Denickestrasse 15, 21073 Hamburg, Germany.



Resurfacing of the hip joint is experiencing a revival due to improvements in materials, design, and manufacturing techniques. Despite good midterm outcomes, the high early rate of failure and concerns about metal debris require a detailed morphological and wear analysis of retrieved resurfacing implants in order to understand failure mechanisms.


A worldwide collection of hip resurfacing revision devices was initiated, and 267 components were received. Devices were analyzed by patient demographics, radiographic positioning, and wear, as well as morphologically and histologically. Specimens were grouped into four different failure types. They were also stratified into rim-loaded or non-rim-loaded groups. Failures were also assessed by surgeon learning-curve effects.


Time to failure was significantly different between the four revision-type groups: Specimens with fractures involving the implant rim were most common (46%) and failed earliest after surgery (mean of ninety-nine days), followed by fractures inside the femoral head (20%, 262 days) and loose cups (9%, 423 days). Revisions not due to fractures or cup loosening (25%) occurred at a mean of 722 days after surgery. Rim-loaded implants exhibited an average twenty-one to twenty-sevenfold higher wear rate than implants without rim-loading. Rim-loaded implants also showed a steeper mean cup inclination than their non-rim-loaded counterparts (59 degrees compared with 50 degrees ). Most failures occurred during the learning curve of the surgeon (the first fifty to 100 implantations).


Failures on the femoral side usually occur within the first nine months after surgery and appear to be most directly related to the implantation technique or patient selection. Later failures are observed mainly due to acetabular problems, either due to dramatically increased wear or poor cup anchorage. Improper cup anteversion may be similar to or more important than cup inclination in producing excessive wear.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wolters Kluwer
    Loading ...
    Support Center