Fretting–corrosion at the modular tapers interface: Inspection of standard ASTM F1875-98

Abstract

Interest in the degradation mechanisms at the modular tapers interfaces has been renewed due to increased reported cases of adverse reactions to metal debris and the appearance of wear and corrosion at the modular tapers interfaces at revision. Over the past two decades, a lot of research has been expended to understand the degradation mechanisms, with two primary implant loading procedures and orientations used consistently across the literature. ASTM F1875-98 is often used as a guide to understand and benchmark the tribocorrosion processes occurring within the modular tapers interface. This article presents a comparison of the two methods outlined in ASTM F1875-98 as well as a critique of the standard considering the current paradigm in pre-clinical assessment of modular tapers.

Corrosion of Metallic Biomaterials: A Review

“…Nevertheless, fretting corrosion may occur also at backside contacts in joint prostheses, bone-implant contact regions, overlapping cardiovascular stent contact points and other locations where surface contact and small cyclic motion exist [40]. Hence, fretting corrosion of biomaterials and implants has been studied extensively in the lab as well as on retrieved implants [40,68,142,143,271,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348]. ASTM F1875 [349] specifies fretting corrosion testing of hip femoral head/bore and cone taper interface in modular implants.…”

A comparison of metal/metal and ceramic/metal taper‐trunnion modular connections in explanted total hip replacements

“…Volume loss measurements are more quantitative than the visual assessment and use coordinate measurement machines to measure changes in the taper/trunnion volume compared to the ideal or as‐manufactured volume 6,12 . Mass loss is a quantitative assessment where components are weighed before and after testing to measure the amount of material removal from the contacting surface 13,14 . Measuring the electrochemical potential while the modular surfaces are dynamically loaded allows for a direct measurement of corrosion and re‐passivation of the modular surfaces 13,14 .…”

“…Damage of modular head tapers has been assessed using a number of metrics including visual assessment, 10 , 11 , 12 volume loss measurements, 6 , 12 mass loss measurements, 13 , 14 as well as electrochemical assessment of the contacting surfaces. 13 , 14 Visual assessments are generally qualitative and are based on the subjective judgment of multiple observers who rate the visual or photographic surfaces of the modular connections and provide a score based on the relative quantity and intensity of the observed wear/corrosion on the surfaces. 10 , 11 , 12 However, scoring methods with different scales and scoring criteria can make it difficult to compare results across different studies.…”

“… 6 , 12 Mass loss is a quantitative assessment where components are weighed before and after testing to measure the amount of material removal from the contacting surface. 13 , 14 Measuring the electrochemical potential while the modular surfaces are dynamically loaded allows for a direct measurement of corrosion and re‐passivation of the modular surfaces. 13 , 14 Of the four techniques, visual assessment and volume loss are most suited for assessing explanted modular head tapers since lack of preimplantation mass data and tissue fixation can prevent accurate mass measurements of the explanted devices and it is not possible to perform electrochemical measurements of the modular head tapers once explanted.…”

A review of the bio-tribology of medical devices

“…Different modular head and neck combinations of an artificial hip joint can not only restore different anatomical structures but also optimize the biomechanical functions. However, fretting corrosion often happens due to mechanically assisted corrosion [10] and causes the failure of the modular interfaces.…”