A plate breaks, a hip stem loosens, a taper corrodes — the retrieved hardware carries the record of whether it was a defect, a placement issue, or a duty cycle no device could survive.
Start a conversation with our AI Research Concierge, already scoped to orthopedic hardware failure. Pick a starting point, or describe your situation directly.
Orthopedic fixation and joint replacement hardware operates under a combination no other implant category faces: it is load-bearing, it is anchored to living bone that itself remodels in response to the hardware, and it is expected to survive millions of loading cycles for years or decades. When it fails, the fracture surface tells a very specific story — a fatigue fracture propagates from a stress riser, usually a screw hole, leaving beach marks that a metallurgist reads the way a tree's rings are read; a loosened component shows a wear pattern and bone interface consistent with years of micromotion, not sudden trauma. The retrieval and the imaging together usually resolve whether the hardware failed because of a material or design defect, because it was positioned outside its intended envelope, or because it simply reached the end of what any implant in that duty cycle could be expected to survive.
Fixation and joint replacement hardware fails through a small number of well-characterized mechanisms, each with a distinct signature at retrieval.
Cyclic loading fracturing plates, screws, or intramedullary nails at a stress riser — most often a screw hole — well before any single overload event.
Progressive loss of fixation at the bone-implant interface driven by micromotion and osteolysis, absent any infection.
Particulate wear debris from an articulating bearing surface triggering macrophage-mediated bone resorption around the implant.
Fretting and crevice corrosion at a head-neck or other modular junction, releasing metal ions and generating a local inflammatory soft-tissue reaction.
Fracture of the bone adjacent to a well-fixed or loosened implant, often related to stress-shielding or a stress riser at the implant tip.
Surgical positioning outside the intended envelope producing edge loading, accelerated wear, or recurrent dislocation.
Orthopedic retrieval analysis starts with how the hardware was handled coming out of the patient, because the wear and fracture surfaces are the primary evidence.
Orthopedic hardware failures carry consequences well beyond the fracture itself:
The fracture surface and wear pattern are the evidence. Cleaning, cutting for pathology, or discarding hardware after revision surgery destroys exactly the surfaces that identify the mechanism.
Fractography answers most of this. A fatigue fracture that initiated at a manufacturing flaw — a machining mark, an inclusion, a subsurface defect — shows a distinct origin and striation pattern under SEM compared to one that initiated at a stress riser under otherwise normal cyclic loading. Comparing the fracture against the design's rated fatigue life and the patient's actual activity level and time-in-service helps determine which explanation fits.
Trunnionosis is fretting and crevice corrosion at the modular head-neck junction of a hip implant, driven by micromotion between the femoral head and the stem's trunnion. It releases metal ions and corrosion debris that trigger local tissue reactions and can necessitate revision. Diagnosis at retrieval combines visual and SEM examination of the taper surface for characteristic corrosion patterns with metal-ion testing of surrounding tissue and fluid.
Usually yes, from the combination of pre-revision imaging and the retrieved hardware. Malpositioning tends to produce a wear pattern concentrated on one edge of the bearing surface consistent with the implanted angle, along with imaging showing the component outside its intended orientation. A device defect — a material flaw, an out-of-specification surface finish — tends to produce damage independent of positioning, and is confirmed by materials testing against the design specification rather than by imaging alone.
Both present clinically as a loosened implant, but the mechanisms and evidence differ. Aseptic loosening is driven by mechanical micromotion and wear-debris-induced osteolysis, with no organisms present. Infection-related loosening involves bacterial colonization, and confirming it requires culture, histopathology, and inflammatory markers rather than mechanical evidence alone. The distinction matters because it changes both the revision procedure and where liability, if any, is likely to sit.
Manufacturers fatigue-test implant designs to a specified number of cycles at a specified load under standards such as ISO 7206 for hip stems, well beyond what a typical patient's daily activity would produce over the intended service life. A forensic investigation compares the failed unit's actual time-in-service and estimated loading history against that rated fatigue life to determine whether the failure occurred well within, at, or before the expected service life, which is often the central fact in the case.
Technical briefings from our work in this area.
A plate that meets every applicable standard can still be part of a construct that fails. Working length, screw placement, junctions and mixed metals are assembly properties, not device properties.
readFollow-up imaging is a load history written in instalments, and the removed hardware is the physical half of the same record. Theatre routine destroys one of them within hours.
readTrauma fixation hardware has a finite fatigue life and is meant to be relieved of load by healing bone. When it breaks, the fracture surface usually says more about union than about metal.
readTell us what happened. We will triage it and connect you with the right expert — usually within one business day.