Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The history of metal-on-metal bearing began with K. Mc Kee. Several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology. But to date the indications for this bearing are debated and are subject to reservations because of the existence of permanently elevated levels of circulating metal ions. It therefore appears that the monitoring of our patients, the documentation of our revisions and the collaboration with our industry partners as well as communicating with our biology and pathology colleagues is necessary to help us solve these problems.Metal-on-metal: history, state-of the-art (2010) Typically, the first total hip implant with a metal-on-metal articulation is attributed to P. Wiles who, in 1938, implanted a couple made of steel [53]-but this was prehistory!The more recent experience starts with McKee whose name will always remain associated with first generation metal-on-metal. However, a high number of failures discredited this metal-on-metal articulation; even more so, because the good tolerance of polyethylene underlined the qualities of the metal-on-polyethylene articulation advocated by J. Charnley who would also became the gravedigger of this first generation.An elaborate analysis of the failures led Weber to initiate and then promote a second generation of metal-on-metal, cemented at first, then rapidly followed by non-cemented prostheses.In 1996, a special edition of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research was dedicated to this bearing. Its particular complication, ALVAL, would be documented by Willert.The tribology of metal-on-metal, thus better known, reopened the door to bipolar resurfacing, and the complicated treatment of fractured necks led to the development of conventional total hip prostheses with a large diameter head.It is this evolution towards a large diameter that gave reason to reconsider the consequences of excessive wear of metal-on-metal articulations. The adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) also deserves to be analyzed! Eventually, because of these never resolved uncertainties, which are still a topic due to the high potential risk related to the permanently circulating metal ions, the metalon-metal bearing appears to be the "bad boy" among the joint bearing made available to surgeons today.Thus, several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology.Metal-on-metal: episode 1 While G.K. McKee stands for metal-on-metal coupling, also K.M. Sivash, P. Ring, J. Scales, A. Hugler, M. Müller and M. Postel deserve mention. They have all participated in the development of this bearing surface and have honestly faced up to the limits and the failures of their work [40].McKee had to rapidly give up steel for a chrome-cobaltmolybdenum alloy promoted by Venable, and the acetab-P. Triclot
The history of metal-on-metal bearing began with K. Mc Kee. Several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology. But to date the indications for this bearing are debated and are subject to reservations because of the existence of permanently elevated levels of circulating metal ions. It therefore appears that the monitoring of our patients, the documentation of our revisions and the collaboration with our industry partners as well as communicating with our biology and pathology colleagues is necessary to help us solve these problems.Metal-on-metal: history, state-of the-art (2010) Typically, the first total hip implant with a metal-on-metal articulation is attributed to P. Wiles who, in 1938, implanted a couple made of steel [53]-but this was prehistory!The more recent experience starts with McKee whose name will always remain associated with first generation metal-on-metal. However, a high number of failures discredited this metal-on-metal articulation; even more so, because the good tolerance of polyethylene underlined the qualities of the metal-on-polyethylene articulation advocated by J. Charnley who would also became the gravedigger of this first generation.An elaborate analysis of the failures led Weber to initiate and then promote a second generation of metal-on-metal, cemented at first, then rapidly followed by non-cemented prostheses.In 1996, a special edition of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research was dedicated to this bearing. Its particular complication, ALVAL, would be documented by Willert.The tribology of metal-on-metal, thus better known, reopened the door to bipolar resurfacing, and the complicated treatment of fractured necks led to the development of conventional total hip prostheses with a large diameter head.It is this evolution towards a large diameter that gave reason to reconsider the consequences of excessive wear of metal-on-metal articulations. The adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) also deserves to be analyzed! Eventually, because of these never resolved uncertainties, which are still a topic due to the high potential risk related to the permanently circulating metal ions, the metalon-metal bearing appears to be the "bad boy" among the joint bearing made available to surgeons today.Thus, several "episodes" have marked the history of metal-on-metal articulations, and each has contributed to a better understanding of this type of tribology.Metal-on-metal: episode 1 While G.K. McKee stands for metal-on-metal coupling, also K.M. Sivash, P. Ring, J. Scales, A. Hugler, M. Müller and M. Postel deserve mention. They have all participated in the development of this bearing surface and have honestly faced up to the limits and the failures of their work [40].McKee had to rapidly give up steel for a chrome-cobaltmolybdenum alloy promoted by Venable, and the acetab-P. Triclot
The long-term survival of Metasul(®) cemented total hip replacements using 28-mm metal-on-metal head is comparable with metal on polyethylene bearing devices.
While hard-on-hard bearing survival rates have generally been variable with earlier designs, contemporary implants have demonstrated survival of 95% or greater at followup of between 3 and 10 years. Some variability in survival may be due to differences in surgical technique, component positioning, and implant designs. As bearing designs continue to improve with modified materials and manufacturing techniques, use will increase, especially in young and active patients, though concerns remain about the increased reports of adverse events after metal-on-metal bearings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.