Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleFull Length Article
Open Access

A review of the biologic effects of spine implant debris: Fact from fiction

Nadim James Hallab
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2009, 3 (4) 143-160; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esas.2009.11.005
Nadim James Hallab
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nhallab@rush.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    These analyses of (a) volume and (b) number distributions of two debris samples demonstrate how similar number distributions can result from very different actual size distributions as evident in (a) the volume distributions. Note: The x-axis represents increasing particle diameter and the y-axis is (a) percentage of total number of particles in each size range and (b) the percentage of total mass of each sample that is of that size range. (Courtesy of BioEngineering Solutions Inc.)

  • Fig. 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2

    A graphical comparison of data showing the amount of wear debris generated from different types of total joint arthplasties demonstrating that there is relatively less (10×) polymeric debris generated by a total disc arthroplasty with a metal-on-polymer articulation. However, this difference is not apparent with metal-on-metal articulating implants. Note: Figure References: Metal-Poly:24Ceramic-Poly:25, Metal-X-linked Poly: 22 Metal-X-linked Poly: 26, Metal-X-linked Poly: 27, Metal-X-linked Poly: 28, Metal-Metal: 29, Ceramic-Ceramic: 30, Metal-UHMWPE TDA: 17, Metal-Metal TDA: 18.

  • Fig. 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3

    A graphical comparison of data showing (a) the reported size of implant debris generated from different types of total joint arthplasties and (b) the amount of particles per year this results in using the gravimetric data shown in Fig. 1. The smaller size of the particles reported in highly crosslinked polymer particles (copared to traditional poly) combined with the modest reductions in wear rate results in metal on Metal-X-linked Poly. Note: Fig. References: Metal-Poly:24Ceramic-Poly:25, Metal-X-linked Poly: 22 Metal-X-linked Poly: 26, Metal-X-linked Poly: 27, Metal-X-linked Poly: 28, Metal-Metal: 29, Ceramic-Ceramic: 30, Metal-UHMWPE TDA: 17, Metal-Metal TDA: 18.

  • Fig. 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4

    Transmission Electron Photomicrographs: (a) Macrophage containing phagocytized titanium particles. (b) Endothelial cell lining with embedded titanium debris. These specimens were obtained from a tissue sample overlying the posterolateral fusion mass (sixteen-week autograft + titanium) (TEM magnification = 20,000×) (courtesy of Bryan Cunningham).

  • Fig. 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5

    At surgical exploration the broken and dislodged instrumentation was accompanied by stainless steel particulate debris. Anteroposterior radiograph in a patient with breakage of a longitudinal rod connecting pedicle screws two years post-operatively. (Courtesy of Bryan Cunningham.)

  • Fig. 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 6

    TNF-α Cytokine Expressing Macrophages: Membrane-bound or intracellular TNF-α, contained in the tissue layer overlying the posterolateral sites, produced yellow to brown chromagen label as shown in this sixteen-week autograft + stainless steel particles in a rabbit model. (Avitan-Biotin Complex horseradish peroxidase technique for TNF-α, magnification 40). (Courtesy of Bryan Cunningham.)

  • Fig. 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 7

    This schematic shows the numerous pro-inflammatory mediators produced by peri-implant tissue and immune cells reacting to implant debris, which can negatively affect bone turnover. The pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-alpha are thought to be some of the most potent cytokines in this cascade of signaling. The inflammasome pathway within cells such as macrophages has recently been reported to be central to implant debris mediated pro-inflammatory reactivity. Ingestion of the debris phagocytosis results in the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that affect local cell types and induce a widening zone of soft-tissue damage and inflammation. (Courtesy of BioEngineering Solutions Inc)

  • Fig. 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 8

    A compilation of investigations showing the averaged incidence percentages of metal sensitivity for nickel, cobalt or chromium among 1) the general population, 2) patients after receiving a metal containing TJA, 3) patients with metal-on-metal bearing arthroplasty and 4) patient populations with significant osteolysis or due to be revised. Note: Studies by Hallab et al used LTT to measure hypersensitivity, all other used dermal patch testing.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Approximate average concentrations of metal in human body fluids with and without total joint replacements. Note: where ranges were reported they are included here within parentheses, eg (1– 4). All concentrations are reported in ppb (ng/mL)

    Concentrations of metal in body fluids (ng/mL or ppb)
    CoCrMoNiTiAlReferences
    Serum
     Normal<0.2–0.6109 (0.2–8.3)1090.2110 (0.1–0.7)1100.42110 (0.3–1.8)110*1.2–2.7109;111 (1.1–7.9)1.2–2.2111 (1.1–6.4)<0.8111 <0.8109, 111
     TKA-M/P0.2 (<0.02–1.15)1120.1 (<0.02–0.6)112*0.4 (0.05–1.5)1123.2 (<2.1–6.3)1116.5 (2.1–9.4)111<0.8 <0.8111111, 112
     TKA-F****135.6 (24.1–716.9)1113.7 (0.8–6.2)1110.9 (<0.8–2.6)111111
     THA-M/P0.9 (<0.3–3.9)1131.28 (0.1–2.4)113**1.4–4.16, 2.6113(<1.1–11.17)109 ;1131.2–1.7109 (0.2–2.46)109*40;109;113;114
     THA-M-M2.4 (0.6–7.9)1133.5 (0.8–9.1)113**1.9113 (1.1–6.0)113**113
     TDA1.9–4.854;551.9–2.454;55*****54;55
    Synovial fluid
     Normal****<0.1 (<0.1–7.6)1157.3 (1.9–19)115*115;116
     THA5116, 0.2 (<0.02–1.15)1123116, 0.1 (<0.02–0.6)11221 ± 81164116, 0.4 (0.05–1.5)11213–556116109–6541165–62116112;116
     THA-F588 ± 427116385 ± 23211658 ± 5311632 ± 1611686 ± 35116256 ± 27111625 ± 19116116
    Whole blood
     Normal0.1–1.21162–61160.5–1.81162.9–7.011617 ± 6011612 ± 41165.8 ± 4116116
     THA67 ± 62116 218 ± 23311623 ± 31116116
     THA-F20 ± 25116110 ± 15011612 ± 911629 ± 29116602 ± 927116237 ± 30711655 ± 63116116
    Human tissue (µg/g) (roughly equivalent to: 10−1 to 10−2 mM)
    Liver
     Normal10089014120<14**117;118
     TJA56068022152001130**117;118
    Psuedocapsule
     Normal<65120<950150**116;117;119;120
     TJA3940046012154903820**116;117;119;120
    Lymphatic
     Normal***10690**117
    Tissue
     TJA***390690**117
    • Abbreviations: Normal, subjects without any metallic prosthesis (not including dental); M/P, metal on polyarticulation; M/M, metal-on-metal articulation; F, subjects with a poorly functioning arthroplasty (loose or migratory osteolysis prior to surgical revision); THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; TJA, subjects with well functioning total joint arthroplasty (either knee or hip); TDA Spine, total disc arthroplasty (metal on metal).

    • ↵* Data not available.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 3, Issue 4
1 Jan 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A review of the biologic effects of spine implant debris: Fact from fiction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A review of the biologic effects of spine implant debris: Fact from fiction
Nadim James Hallab
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2009, 3 (4) 143-160; DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2009.11.005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A review of the biologic effects of spine implant debris: Fact from fiction
Nadim James Hallab
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2009, 3 (4) 143-160; DOI: 10.1016/j.esas.2009.11.005
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion and conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Preoperative laryngoscopic examination in patients undergoing repeat anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
  • Kinematic analysis following implantation of the PRESTIGE LP
  • The value of adding posterior interbody fusion in the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disorders: A systematic review
Show more Full Length Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Implant debris
  • inflammation
  • total disc arthroplasty
  • Osteolysis
  • Hypersensitivity
  • Metal debris
  • Particulate
  • implant
  • spine
  • Cytokines
  • Inflammasome
  • wear
  • Wear debris

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire