Comparative analysis of fretting-corrosion at stem-cement and stem-head interfaces in stainless steel implants: Implications for adverse tissue reactions
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2025
Comparative analysis of fretting-corrosion at stem-cement and stem-head interfaces in stainless steel implants: Implications for adverse tissue reactions
Degradation of implants by fretting-corrosion is the main source of released metal ions and debris, leading to adverse tissue reactions. Cemented stems have two interfaces that could be degraded: stem-cement and stem-head. This study aimed to identify which interface suffers the most severe degradation and, for this reason, is potentially more harmful to the human body. For this purpose, six pairs of stems and femoral heads made of stainless steel were divided into two groups according to the interface to be evaluated: I (stem-cement) and II (stem-head). The implants of both groups were subjected to a fretting-corrosion test, applying cyclic loading in corrosive environment for five million cycles. Fretting-corrosion mechanism was evaluated using electrochemical tests, optical microscopy, SEM/EDS analysis, and ions and particles analysis. The fretting current of the stem-cement interfaces was greater than that of the stem-head interfaces. SEM analysis showed the occurrence of corrosion and wear mechanisms, which are found in many published cases of retrieval analyses, indicating that there is a correlation between the mechanisms identified in benchtop test and those in retrieved stems. The amount of particles released in both interfaces was similar to that identified in retrieval analyses. For the stem-cement interface, the amount of particles released was higher than that associated with the stem-head interface. The stem-cement interface resulted in a greater release of ions than the stem-head interface. This reinforces the hypothesis that stem degradation at the stem-cement interface could be more harmful to the human body than that at the stem-head interface.
National Joint Registry. 20th Annual Report 2023 - National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. London: National Joint Registry, 2023.
2.
New Zealand Orthopaedics Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry: Twenty-one year report January 1999 to December 2022. Wellington: New Zealand Orthopaedics Association Joint Registry, 2023.
3.
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. National Joint Replacement Registry – Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty – Annual Report 2023. Adelaide: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, 2023.
4.
GoldbergJRGilbertJLJacobsJJ, et al. A multicenter retrieval study of the taper interfaces of modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002; 401: 149–161.
5.
ShulmanRMZywielMGGandhiR, et al. Trunnionosis: the latest culprit in adverse reactions to metal debris following hip arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol2015; 44: 433–440.
6.
BryantM. Fretting-crevice corrosion of cemented metal on metal total hip replacements. Doctoral Dissertation University of Leeds, UK, 2013.
7.
ZhouZLiuXLiuQ, et al. Evaluation of the potential cytotoxicity of metals associated with implanted biomaterials (I). Prep Biochem Biotechnol2009; 39: 81–91.
8.
SchedleAEllingerASamorapoompichitP, et al. Response of L-929 fibroblasts, human gingival fibroblasts, and human tissue mast cells to various metal cations. J Dent Res1995; 74: 1513–1520.
9.
LiYWongCXiongJ, et al. Cytotoxicity of titanium and titanium alloying elements. J Dent Res2010; 89: 493–497.
10.
KwonYMTsaiTYLeoneWA, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of metal ion levels in predicting “pseudotumors” due to taper corrosion in patients with dual taper modular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 996–1000.
11.
ChoiDParkYYoonYS, et al. In vitro measurement of interface micromotion and crack in cemented total hip arthroplasty systems with different surface roughness. Clin Biomech2010; 25: 50–55.
12.
EbramzadehESangiorgioSNLongjohnDB, et al. Initial stability of cemented femoral stems as a function of surface finish, collar, and stem size. J Bone Joint Surg Ser A2004; 86: 106–115.
13.
JauchSYHuberGHoenigE, et al. Influence of material coupling and assembly condition on the magnitude of micromotion at the stem-neck interface of a modular hip endoprosthesis. J Biomech2011; 44: 1747–1751.
14.
OuelletteESMaliSAKimJ, et al. Design, material, and seating load effects on in vitro fretting corrosion performance of modular head-neck tapers. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 991–1002.
15.
BaxmannMPfaffAMSchillingC, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of the fatigue performance, the taper corrosion and the metal ion release of a dual taper hip prosthesis under physiological environmental conditions. Biotribology2017; 12: 1–7.
16.
WillertHGBrobäckLGBuchhornGH, et al. Crevice corrosion of cemented titanium alloy stems in total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; 333: 51–75.
17.
EnglishRAshkanfarARothwellG. The effect of different assembly loads on taper junction fretting wear in total hip replacements. Tribol Int2016; 95: 199–210.
18.
BennettDHumphreysLO’BrienS, et al. Activity levels and polyethylene wear of patients 10 years post hip replacement. Clin Biomech2008; 23: 571–576.
19.
HothiHSBerberRPanagiotopoulosAC, et al. Clinical significance of corrosion of cemented femoral stems in metal-on-metal hips: a retrieval study. Int Orthop2016; 40: 2247–2254.
20.
ManivasagamGDhinasekaranDRajamanickamA. Biomedical implants: corrosion and its prevention - a review. Recent Pat Corros Sci2010; 2: 40–54.
21.
GeringerJForestBCombradeP. Fretting-corrosion of materials used as orthopaedic implants. Wear2005; 259: 943–951.
22.
NambuSObertRRoarkM, et al. Accelerated fretting corrosion testing of modular necks for total hip arthroplasty. In: GreenwaldASKurtzSMLemonsJE, et al (eds) Modularity and tapers in total joint replacement devices. New Orleans, LA: ASTM International, 2016, pp.237–258.
23.
GruppTMWeikTBloemerW, et al. Modular titanium alloy neck adapter failures in hip replacement-failure mode analysis and influence of implant material. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2010; 11: 3.
24.
dos SantosVOCubillosPOdos SantosCT, et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of fretting-corrosion at stem-head and stem-cement interfaces of hip implants using in vitro and in silico models. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater2022; 110: 2521–2532.
25.
BergmannGGraichenFRohlmannA, et al. Realistic loads for testing hip implants. Biomed Mater Eng2010; 20: 65–75.
26.
BrandRAPedersenDRDavyDT, et al. Comparison of hip force calculations and measurements in the same patient. J Arthroplasty1994; 9: 45–51.
27.
SchwachmeyerVDammPBenderA, et al. In vivo hip joint loading during post-operative physiotherapeutic exercises. PLoS One2013; 8: e77807.
28.
AljenaeiF. In vitro simulation of modular neck fracture, wear, corrosion, and distraction in total hip replacements. Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada, 2015.
29.
BergmannGBenderADymkeJ, et al. Standardized loads acting in hip implants. PLoS One2016; 11: e0155612.
30.
HothiHSMatthiesAKBerberR, et al. The reliability of a scoring system for corrosion and fretting, and its relationship to material loss of tapered, modular junctions of retrieved hip implants. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1313–1317.
31.
MatthiesAKRacasanRBillsP, et al. Material loss at the taper junction of retrieved large head metal-on-metal total hip replacements. J Orthop Res2013; 31: 1677–1685.
32.
ArnholtCUnderwoodRMacDonaldDW, et al. Microgrooved surface topography does not influence fretting corrosion of tapers in total hip arthroplasty: classification and retrieval analysis. In: GreenwaldASKurtzSMLemonsJE, et al (eds) Modularity and tapers in total joint replacement devices. New Orleans, LA: ASTM International, 2016, pp.99–112.
33.
PourzalRLundbergHJHallDJ, et al. What factors drive taper corrosion?J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 2707–2711.
34.
HallDJPourzalRDella ValleCJ, et al. Corrosion of modular junctions in femoral and acetabular components for hip arthroplasty and its local and systemic effects. In: GreenwaldASKurtzSMLemonsJE, et al (eds) Modularity and tapers in total joint replacement devices. New Orleans, LA: ASTM International, 2016, pp.410–427.
35.
ZhuSHuangNXuL, et al. Biocompatibility of pure iron: in vitro assessment of degradation kinetics and cytotoxicity on endothelial cells. Mater Sci Eng C2009; 29: 1589–1592.
36.
LeeJMSalvatiEABettsF, et al. Size of metallic and polyethylene debris particles in failed cemented total hip replacements. J Bone Joint SurgSer B1992; 74-B: 380–384.
37.
TopolovecMMiloševICörA, et al. Wear debris from hip prostheses characterized by electron imaging. Open Med2013; 8: 476–484.
38.
GillHSGrammatopoulosGAdsheadS, et al. Molecular and immune toxicity of CoCr nanoparticles in MoM hip arthroplasty. Trends Mol Med2012; 18: 145–155.
39.
ASM 23. NarayanRJ (ed.) ASM handbook, Volume 23: Materials for medical devices. In: NarayanRJ (ed.) ASM handbook. Russell Township, Geauga County, OH: ASM International, 2012, pp. 267–277.
40.
PooleKETreeceGMMayhewPM, et al. Cortical thickness mapping to identify focal osteoporosis in patients with hip fracture. PLoS One2012; 7: e38466.
41.
SomeyaKMochizukiTHokariS, et al. Age- and sex-related characteristics in cortical thickness of femoral diaphysis for young and elderly subjects. J Bone Miner Metab2020; 38: 533–543.
