Implant fractures complicate orthopaedic procedures requiring secondary surgeries. However, it is not exactly known when the damage initiation starts and which factors predispose them to the highest degree. Thus, the aim of the study was to characterize changes observed in orthopaedic implants after their removal from the bone. Particular efforts were made to determine, which of them occur during the process of its production, installation, usage and removal. Such identification enabled to specify the role of lesions emerging during each period and their role in the implant’s deformation or fracture. The paper was focused on implants dedicated to the stabilization of the femur fractures since the bone transfers the highest loads. External surface and geometric features of eight representative implants were observed under standard and stereoscopic cameras, as well as under light and scanning electron microscopes. Macroscopic analysis of the investigated implants exhibited a number of defects in the form of scratches, abrasions, deformations and chipping. The wear degree of each implant was different and strictly depended on how it was implanted in the patient's body, as well as on how the patient exploited it through his mobility. Four different sources of implant integrity changes were identified: manufacturing-related changes, implant application-related changes, daily life-related changes and implant removal-related changes.
ArteagaAQuJHaynesS, et al. (2021)
Diabetes as a risk factor for orthopedic implant surface performance: a retrieval and In vitro study. Journal of Bio- and Tribo-Corrosion7(2): 51.
2.
BaltatuMSVizureanuPSanduAV, et al. (2021)
New titanium alloys, promising materials for medical devices. Materials14(20): 5934.
3.
BurrisB L (1977)
NBS special publication. The National Bureau of Standards.
Washington D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
BuserDJannerSFMWittnebenJ, et al. (2012)
10‐Year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid‐etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research14(6): 839–851.
5.
CadoschDChanEGautschiOP, et al. (2009)
Metal is not inert : Role of metal ions released by biocorrosion in aseptic loosening-Current concepts: Role of metal ions released by biocorrosion in aseptic loosening. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part A91(4): 1252–1262.
6.
DuisabeauLCombradePForestB (2004)
Environmental effect on fretting of metallic materials for orthopaedic implants. Wear256(7–8): 805–816.
FestasARamosADavimJ (2020)
Medical devices biomaterials – A review. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications234(1): 218–228.
9.
FroesFH, et al. (2001) Titanium: Alloying. In: BuschowKHJCahnRWFlemingsMC (eds) Encyclopedia of Materials. Science and Technology.
Oxford:
Elsevier, pp.9361–9364.
10.
FroschKDrengkAKrauseP, et al. (2006)
Stem cell-coated titanium implants for the partial joint resurfacing of the knee. Biomaterials27(12): 2542–2549.
11.
FuruiATeradaNMitoK (2018)
Mechanical simulation study of postoperative displacement of trochanteric fractures using the finite element method. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research13(1): 300.
12.
GaeblerCStanzl-TscheggSTscheggEK, et al. (1999)
Implant failure of the gamma nail. Injury30(2): 91–99.
13.
GrahamJPeckJ (2019) FDA regulation of PEEK implants. In: Steven M. Krutz (ed.) PEEK Biomaterials Handbook.
Oxford:
Elsevier, pp. 431–445.
14.
GreenfieldEMBiYRagabAA, et al. (2005)
Does endotoxin contribute to aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants?Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials72(1): 179–185.
15.
HarryssonOLHosniYANayfehJF (2007)
Custom-designed orthopedic implants evaluated using finite element analysis of patient-specific computed tomography data: femoral-component case study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders8(1): 91.
16.
HerreraAIbarzECegoñinoJ, et al. (2012)
Applications of finite element simulation in orthopedic and trauma surgery. World Journal of Orthopedics3(4): 25–41.
17.
HeyseTJDavisJHaasSB, et al. (2011)
Retrieval analysis of femoral zirconium components in total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty26(3): 445–450.
18.
IbrahimMZSarhanAADYusufF, et al. (2017)
Biomedical materials and techniques to improve the tribological, mechanical and biomedical properties of orthopedic implants – A review article. Journal of Alloys and Compounds714: 636–667.
19.
JahaniB (2021)
The effects of surface roughness on the functionality of Ti13Nb13Zr orthopedic implants. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research38(1): 30058–30067.
20.
KaurHHyderM LPostonW S C (2003)
Childhood overweight. Treatments in Endocrinology2(6): 375–388.
21.
KlimasJŁukaszewiczASzotaM, et al. (2015)
Modification of the structure and properties of the titanium alloy Ti6Al4V in biomedical applications. Archives of Metallurgy and Materials60(3): 2013–2018.
22.
KopecMBrodeckiASzczęsnyG, et al. (2021)
Microstructural analysis of fractured orthopedic implants. Materials14(9): 2209.
23.
KopelmanPG (2000)
Obesity as a medical problem. Nature404(6778): 635–643.
24.
LakdawalaATodoSScottG (2005)
The significance of surface changes on retrieved femoral components after total knee replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume87(6): 796–799.
25.
LiCSVannabouathongCSpragueS, et al. (2015)
The use of carbon-fiber-reinforced (CFR) PEEK material in orthopedic implants: A systematic review. Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders8: 33–45.
26.
LiuXChenSTsoiJKH, et al. (2017)
Binary titanium alloys as dental implant materials – A review. Regenerative Biomaterials4(5): 315–323.
27.
LiuLWangJRussellT, et al. (2017)
The biological responses to magnesium-based biodegradable medical devices. Metals7(11): 514.
28.
MeeuwisMAde JonghMACRoukemaJA, et al. (2016)
Technical errors and complications in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery136(2): 185–193.
29.
Metikos-HukovićMKwokalAPiljacJ (2003)
The influence of niobium and vanadium on passivity of titanium-based implants in physiological solution. Biomaterials24(21): 3765–3775.
30.
NiinomiM (2019) Metals for Biomedical Devices.
Sawston, Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing.
31.
O'BrienM FPetersonDCaseyA T, et al. (1996)
A novel technique for laminoplasty augmentation of spinal canal area using titanium miniplate stabilization: a computerized morphometric analysis. Spine21(4): 474–483; discussion 484.
32.
OkazakiYChinzeiK (2022) Development of orthopedic implants with highly biocompatible ti alloys.
IntechOpen Crossref. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.105389.
33.
OnalOBalBTokerS, et al. (2014)
Microstructure-based modeling of the impact response of a biomedical niobium–zirconium alloy. Journal of Materials Research29(10): 1123–1134.
34.
PrabhakarSMDecruzJJamesWLH, et al. (2021)
A simple technique for removal of interlocking screw from an intramedullary nail: A case report. Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports11(1): 12–15.
35.
RochaSSDAdaboGLHenriquesGEP, et al. (2006)
Vickers hardness of cast commercially pure titanium and ti-6Al-4V alloy submitted to heat treatments. Brazilian Dental Journal17(2): 126–129.
36.
SchwartzC (2019)
How to reduce osteopenia in total knee arthroplasty?European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology : Orthopedie Traumatologie29(1): 139–145.
37.
SemlitschM (1987)
Titanium alloys for hip joint replacements. Clinical Materials2(1): 1–13.
38.
SidambeA (2014)
Biocompatibility of advanced manufactured titanium implants – A review. Materials (Basel, Switzerland)7(12): 8168–8188.
39.
SudhakarKV (2005)
Metallurgical investigation of a failure in 316L stainless steel orthopaedic implant. Engineering Failure Analysis12(2): 249–256.
40.
SzczęsnyGKopecMPolitisDJ, et al. (2022)
A review on biomaterials for orthopaedic surgery and traumatology: from past to present. Materials15(10): 3622.
41.
SzczęsnyGKopećMSzolcT, et al. (2022)
Deformation of the titanium plate stabilizing the lateral ankle fracture due to its overloading in case of the young, obese patient: Case report including the biomechanical analysis. Diagnostics12(6): 1479.
42.
TallaricoMMeloniSMParkC-J, et al. (2021)
Implant fracture: a narrative literature review. Prosthesis3(4): 267–279.
43.
TallaricoMScrasciaRAnnucciM, et al. (2020)
Errors in implant positioning due to lack of planning: a clinical case report of new prosthetic materials and solutions. Materials (Basel)13(8): 1883.
44.
TapscottDCWottowaC (2022) Orthopedic Implant Materials.
Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing.
45.
TuckerDSurupTPetersikA, et al. (2016)
Full circle: 3D femoral mapping demonstrates age-related changes that influence femoral implant positioning. Injury47(2): 471–477.
46.
WeberMMerleCNawabiDH, et al. (2020)
Inaccurate offset restoration in total hip arthroplasty results in reduced range of motion. Scientific Reports10(1): 13208.
