We report a case of a male patient presenting with bilateral painful but apparently well-positioned and -fixed large-diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements four years post-operatively. Multiple imaging modes revealed a thick-walled, cystic expansile mass in communication with the hip joint (a pseudotumour). Implant retrieval analysis and tissue culture eliminated high bearing wear or infection as causes for the soft-tissue reaction, but noted marked corrosion of the modular neck taper adaptor and corrosion products in the tissues. Therefore, we believe corrosion products from the taper caused by mismatch of the implant components led to pseudotumour formation requiring revision.

This multicentre study analysed 12 alumina ceramic-on-ceramic components retrieved from squeaking total hip replacements after a mean of 23 months in situ (11 to 61). The rates and patterns of wear seen in these squeaking hips were compared with those seen in matched controls using retrieval data from 33 ‘silent’ hip replacements with similar ceramic bearings. All 12 bearings showed evidence characteristic of edge-loading wear. The median rate of volumetric wear was 3.4 mm³/year for the acetabular component, 2.9 mm³/year on the femoral heads and 6.3 mm³/year for head and insert combined. This was up to 45 times greater than that of previously reported silent ceramic-on-ceramic retrievals. The rate of wear seen in ceramic components revised for squeaking hips appears to be much greater than in that seen in retrievals from ‘silent’ hips.

The survivorship of contemporary resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip using metal-on-metal bearings is better than that of first generation designs, but short-term failures still occur. The most common reasons for failure are fracture of the femoral neck, loosening of the component, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, reaction to metal debris and malpositioning of the component. In 2008 the Australian National Joint Registry reported an inverse relationship between the size of the head component and the risk of revision in resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Hips with a femoral component size of ≤ 44 mm have a fivefold increased risk of revision than those with femoral components of ≥ 55 mm irrespective of gender. We have reviewed the literature to explore this observation and to identify possible reasons including the design of the implant, loading of the femoral neck, the orientation of the component, the production of wear debris and the effects of metal ions, penetration of cement and vascularity of the femoral head. Our conclusion is that although multifactorial, the most important contributors to failure in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip are likely to be the design and geometry of the component and the orientation of the acetabular component.