Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 15, 2026
Potentiodynamic Corrosion Testing
Published on: September 4, 2016
Hinge-Knee Megaprostheses Components Wear and Corrode: A Retrospective Study of 40 Devices
Abigail E Tetteh1, Tabitha Derr, Michael A Kurtz
1From the Implant Research Core, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A. E. Tetteh, T. Derr, Dr. M. A. Kurtz, and Dr. S. M. Kurtz); the Orthopedic Specialists of New Jersey, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey (Dr. G. R. Klein); the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr. N. S. Piuzzi); the University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky (Dr. A. Malkani); and the Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, The Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr. M. A. Mont).
Damage to hinge-knee megaprostheses (artificial knee joints) occurs on both metal and polymer parts. Minor damage varied by manufacturer, while major damage did not, suggesting areas for implant improvement.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Biomaterials Science
- Mechanical Engineering
Background:
- Hinge-knee megaprostheses are crucial for complex revision surgeries but exhibit higher complication rates than primary total knee arthroplasties.
- Understanding in vivo damage mechanisms in these implants is essential for improving patient outcomes.
- This study addresses the knowledge gap regarding in vivo damage modes and their variation across manufacturers.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the types and severity of in vivo damage on metal and polymer components of retrieved hinge-knee megaprostheses.
- To determine how these damage modes differ among implants from various manufacturers.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 40 retrieved hinge-knee megaprostheses from three manufacturers.
- Semiquantitative scoring of damage modes (e.g., scratching, pitting, abrasion) using the Kahlenberg method.
- Classification of corrosion using the Goldberg score and statistical analysis of damage variations.
Main Results:
- Identified major damage modes (scratching, pitting, burnishing) and minor damage modes (abrasion, delamination, surface deformation, embedded debris) on polyethylene inserts.
- Minor damage modes showed significant differences between implant cohorts (P < 0.001), unlike major damage modes (P > 0.05).
- Metal components exhibited prevalent scratching over burnishing and discoloration (P < 0.001), with tibial component damage and corrosion varying by manufacturer.
Conclusions:
- In vivo damage is present on both metal and polyethylene components of hinge-knee megaprostheses.
- Corrosion at modular taper junctions results from combined mechanical and chemical processes.
- While overall differences between manufacturers were minimal, variations in minor polyethylene and tibial component damage warrant further investigation.
