Results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 40 years old and younger

A Comparative Cohort Study With a 20-Year Age Gap: Hip Resurfacing in Patients Aged ≤35 Years and Patients Aged ≥55 Years

Background

This single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate and compare implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures in 2 distinct age groups separated by 20 years who underwent hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Methods

Between 2005 and 2014, 2042 HRAs were performed by a single-surgeon, and 75 and 377 hips from patients aged ≤35 years and ≥55 years, respectively, were included in this study. Implant survival was determined for all available hips. Clinical features and patient-reported outcome measures were collected.

Results

Seven hips were revised, 4 for aseptic loosening of one or both components, one for infection, one for accelerated wear and metallosis, and one for femoral neck fracture. There was no difference in all-cause 10-year revision, with 97.1% (95% confidence interval 80.9 to 99.6) and 99.6% (95% confidence interval: 97 to 99.9) survivorship in younger and older patients, respectively (P = .246). Preoperatively, younger patients were less active than older patients on the Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) or University of California, Los Angeles, activity scale, but at follow-up, younger patients outpaced older ones.

Conclusion

Original to our study was the isolation and comparison of 2 distinct age groups. With excellent results in disparate age groups, HRA can be applied to a broad patient demographic and is suitable for those patients who want to achieve a high activity level as defined by Lower Extremity Activity Scale or University of California, Los Angeles, scores.

Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing in Patients 45 Years of Age and Younger at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Metal on metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty in young and active patients. The purpose was to determine the survivorship of MoM-HR procedures performed in patients aged 45 years and younger assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

All 217 patients equal to or younger than 45 years of age at the time of surgical intervention presenting to our center with MoM-HR between May 2002 and May 2011 were prospectively followed. Baseline demographic data, preoperative and postoperative radiographic measurements, and validated PROMs were obtained (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Score). Survivorship was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk factors for failure were identified using multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

The overall survivorship excluding septic failures was 94.6% and 93.8% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component was the most common mode of failure (11/20 cases). Gender, head size, and acetabular abduction angle had no significant effect on survivorship. Significant improvements in PROMs were seen for Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that MoM-HR is a suitable option for young individuals, as demonstrated through improved functional scores and low revision rates. The survivorship of HR in the younger than 45 age-group was similar to that of total hip arthroplasty, as well as HR in older patients. Given the proposed benefits of HR, this procedure may be viewed as a viable option in patients aged younger than 45 years.

Outcomes of the Recalled Articular Surface Replacement Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant System: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this review was to synthesize the main findings of clinical studies that have evaluated outcomes of the articular surface replacement (ASR) Hip System.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search to identify all articles published between January 2008 and June 2015 that included ASR hip resurfacing arthroplasty (ASR HRA) or ASR total hip arthroplasty (ASR XL THA) outcomes according to the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were assessed. The prevalence of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) and revision rates were found to be high. ALTR prevalence varied from 12.5% to 69% (mean, 33.5%). Mean revision rate for any reason at 4-year to 7-year follow-up was 13.8% (range, 5.6%-31%) for ASR HRA and 14.5% (range, 0%-37%) for ASR XL THA. Femoral head size <53 mm was found to correlate with higher blood metal ion levels. Femoral head size >44 mm was not associated with higher ALTR prevalence or revision rates in ASR XL THA. High blood metal ion levels (>7 μg/L Co, >7 μg/L Cr) were associated with higher failure rates and bearing-related complications. The role of cup positioning was found to be controversial.

CONCLUSION

ALTR prevalence and failure rates were high. High blood metal ion levels were a risk factor for ALTR and failure. Surprisingly, the role of cup positioning and large femoral head size in ASR XL THA were controversial. These findings should be considered in the clinical follow-up and risk stratification of patients with the ASR Hip System.

Review of various treatment options and potential therapies for osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Size and location of the lesion, subchondral collapse occurrence, and articular cartilage involvement are general disease progression criteria for direct osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) classifications. Treatment options for ONFH are usually based on individual factors and lesion characteristics. Although spontaneous repair of ONFH occurs in some cases, untreated ONFH is unlikely to escape the fate of subchondral collapse and usually ends up with total hip arthroplasty. Operations to preserve the femoral head, e.g., core decompression and bone grafting, are usually recommended in younger patients. They are helpful to relieve pain and improve function in the affected femoral head without subchondral collapse, however, poor prognosis after surgical procedures remains the major problem for ONFH. Pharmacological and physical therapies only work in the early stage of ONFH and have also been recommended as a supplement or prevention treatment for osteonecrosis. Following advances in basic science, many new insights focus on bone tissue engineering to optimize therapies and facilitate prognosis of ONFH. In this review, disease classifications, current treatment options, potential therapies, and the relevant translational barriers are reviewed in the context of clinical application and preclinical exploration, which would provide guidance for preferable treatment options and translation into novel therapies.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients

Hip resurfacing has been considered a good treatment option for younger, active osteoarthritis patients. However, there are several identified issues concerning risk for neck fractures and issues related to current metal-on-metal implant designs. Neck-preserving short-stem implants have been discussed as a potential alternative, but it is yet unclear which method is better suited for younger adults. We compared hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS) from a young group of patients (n = 52, age 48.9 ± 6.1 years) who had received hip resurfacing (HR) with a cohort of patients (n = 73, age 48.2 ± 6.6 years) who had received neck-preserving, short-stem implant total hip arthroplasty (THA). Additionally, durations for both types of surgery were compared. HOOS improved significantly preoperatively to last followup (>1 year) in both groups (p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.69); there were no group effects or interactions. Surgery duration was significantly longer for resurfacing (104.4 min ± 17.8) than MiniHip surgery (62.5 min ± 14.8), U = 85.0, p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.56. The neck-preserving short-stem approach may be preferable to resurfacing due to the less challenging surgery, similar outcome, and controversy regarding resurfacing implant designs.

How have alternative bearings and modularity affected revision rates in total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to be one of the most successful surgical procedures in the medical field. However, over the last two decades, the use of modularity and alternative bearings in THA has become routine. Given the known problems associated with hard-on-hard bearing couples, including taper failures with more modular stem designs, local and systemic effects from metal-on-metal bearings, and fractures with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, it is not known whether in aggregate the survivorship of these implants is better or worse than the metal-on-polyethylene bearings that they sought to replace.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Have alternative bearings (metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic) and implant modularity decreased revision rates of primary THAs?

METHODS

In this systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, we used several Boolean search strings for each topic and surveyed national registry data from English-speaking countries. Clinical research (Level IV or higher) with ≥ 5 years of followup was included; retrieval studies and case reports were excluded. We included registry data at ≥ 7 years followup. A total of 32 studies (and five registry reports) on metal-on-metal, 19 studies (and five registry reports) on ceramic-on-ceramic, and 20 studies (and one registry report) on modular stem designs met inclusion criteria and were evaluated in detail. Insufficient data were available on metal-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-metal implants, and monoblock acetabular designs were evaluated in another recent systematic review so these were not evaluated here.

RESULTS

There was no evidence in the literature that alternative bearings (either metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic) in THA have decreased revision rates. Registry data, however, showed that large head metal-on-metal implants have lower 7- to 10-year survivorship than do standard bearings. In THA, modular exchangeable femoral neck implants had a lower 10-year survival rate in both literature reviews and in registry data compared with combined registry primary THA implant survivorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improvements in implant technology, there is no evidence that alternative bearings or modularity have resulted in decreased THA revision rates after 5 years. In fact, both large head metal-on-metal THA and added modularity may well lower survivorship and should only be used in select cases in which the mission cannot be achieved without it. Based on this experience, followup and/or postmarket surveillance studies should have a duration of at least 5 years before introducing new alternative bearings or modularity on a widespread scale.