A comparative clinical outcome evaluation of smooth (10?13�year results) versus rough surface finish (5?8�year results) in an otherwise identically designed cemented titanium alloy stem

Abstract

The implantation of titanium alloy stems with a rough surface finish cannot be recommended because of its high aseptic loosening rate.

Coordinating Retrieval and Register Studies Improves Postmarket Surveillance

“…Historically, the performance of cemented titanium alloy femoral stems has been mixed. They are generally considered to perform unsatisfactorily; however, some designs have survivorship ranging from 97.7% at 9 years to 95.4% at 13 years [3,4,11]. In 2008, surgeons identified a change in the performance of the Titan 1 stem, and the NAR later reported a drop in survivorship due to aseptic loosening from about 2000 [5].…”

The influence of proximal stem geometry and surface finish on the fixation of a double-tapered cemented femoral stem

“…Other than the wellpublicized results of the Exeter stem Ling, 1992;Malchau et al, 2002;Middleton et al, 1998) and the results of the MS-30 stem discussed previously Morscher and Wirz, 2002), there has been only one clinical study to compare the outcome for double-tapered stems varying only in surface finish. Specifically, the study compared clinical outcome for Marburg titanium alloy stems, manufactured with two surface finishes: R a ¼1.3 mm (matte or satin finish) and R a ¼4.3 mm (rough or grit-blasted) (Hinrichs et al, 2003). Similar to the MS-30, the Marburg stem is collarless and tapered with pronounced flanges.…”

Contact damage failure analyses of fretting wear behavior of the metal stem titanium alloy–bone cement interface

“…However, for cemented titanium femoral stems, although initial short and mid-term results were encouraging (Sarmiento and Gruen, 1985), many studies have found the high elasticity of the titanium alloy stems and a high incidence of clinical and radiological failures particularly in excessive stress area of the proximal cement mantle. Titanium alloys are currently not favored for hip replacements and they have been or are being replaced by CoCrMo and stainless steel (Hinrichs et al, 2003;Kovac et al, 2006). Ironically, however, new problems have emerged for the change of prosthesis material, including increased incidences of complications and pain and the production of wear debris of the new material like CoCrMo which are poisonous and can easily induce the tissue lesions (Madl et al, 2015;Posada et al, 2014).…”