Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most dreaded complications after arthroplasty surgery; thus numerous approaches have been undertaken to equip metal surfaces with antibacterial properties. Due to its antimicrobial effects, silver is a promising coating for metallic surfaces, and several types of silver-coated arthroplasty implants are in clinical use today. However, silver can also exert toxic effects on eukaryotic cells both in the immediate vicinity of the coated implants and systemically. In most clinically-used implants, silver coatings are applied on bulk components that are not in direct contact with bone, such as in partial or total long bone arthroplasties used in tumour or complex revision surgery. These implants differ considerably in the coating method, total silver content, and silver release rates. Safety issues, such as the occurrence of argyria, have been a cause for concern, and the efficacy of silver coatings in terms of preventing PJI is also controversial. The application of silver coatings is uncommon on parts of implants intended for cementless fixation in host bone, but this option might be highly desirable since the modification of implant surfaces in order to improve osteoconductivity can also increase bacterial adhesion. Therefore, an optimal silver content that inhibits bacterial colonization while maintaining osteoconductivity is crucial if silver were to be applied as a coating on parts intended for bone contact. This review summarizes the different methods used to apply silver coatings to arthroplasty components, with a focus on the amount and duration of silver release from the different coatings; the available experience with silver-coated implants that are in clinical use today; and future strategies to balance the effects of silver on bacteria and eukaryotic cells, and to develop silver-coated titanium components suitable for bone ingrowth. Cite this article:
Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal
articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to
metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach
to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty
patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history,
querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic
patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular
causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening
may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose.
Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs
are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component
position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation
rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal
ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with
manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with
cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative
of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact
reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections
and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris
is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated
and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue
damage and hence poor clinical outcome.
We undertook a review of the literature relating to the two basic stem designs in use in cemented hip replacement, namely loaded tapers or force-closed femoral stems, and the composite beam or shape-closed designs. The associated stem fixation theory as understood from It is clear that both design principles are capable of producing successful long-term results, providing that their specific requirements of stem metallurgy, shape and surface finish, preparation of the bone and handling of the cement are observed.
