Is there a rationale to use a dual mobility poly insert for failed Birmingham metal-on-metal hip replacements? A retrieval analysis

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?

Revision of large-diameter, monoblock acetabular components for both hip resurfacing arthroplasty and metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is correlated to a high amount of complications. For this reason, performing a limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component exchange has been proposed in order to limit these complications. Although DM bearing offers an easy solution avoiding the intraoperative and time-associated complications, concern about polyethylene wear and stability remains due to the difference regarding the design, the coverage angle and the clearance of the two implants. In order to evaluate the performance of this new solution with the new material to prevent the possibility of failure it is essential to conduct a review of the literature A qualitative systematic review of the literature has been conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus for English and French articles between January 2000 and October 2019 was performed, with the primary objective of finding articles about dual mobility bearing coupling with large metal-on-metal cup in the case of hip revision procedure. Various combinations of the key words were used in the search strategy. Thirteen articles with DM bearing mated with MoM cup were analyzed. Of the 130 hip revisions selected, with a follow-up from 6 to 53 months, there were a total of 14 with complications (10.77%): four true dislocations (3.08%); six intra-prosthetic dislocations (IPD, 4.6%), two of which presented plastic deformation and polyethylene wear; four other complications (3.08%), included a cup osteolysis, a clicking noise, a superficial infection and a periprosthetic fracture. All the mentioned true dislocations occurred during the first month while IPDs appeared during the first two years from the index revision. In conclusion, according to the literature analyzed, we can stress that the concerns and doubts about mating a DM bearing with large MoM cup cannot be dissolved. It has been pointed out that a DM bearing is not designed for a MoM cup; it is not mechanically tested on MoM cups, which presents different clearance and coverage angles. Predictable complications may occur, such as IPD, polyethylene wear and true dislocation. These complications have been reported at an even higher rate than they were in the eighties, when the first generation of DM implants were of a lower quality of polyethylene and the characteristic of the design was less optimal than modern ones.

Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components

BACKGROUND

Retention of the acetabular component is an option during conversion from hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of conversion of the femoral resurfacing component with retained acetabular components (RAC) and use of dual-mobility femoral heads to outcomes of patients treated with both component (BC) revisions.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the clinical outcomes of HRA to THA conversions performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-one conversions were included (27 RAC and 44 BC). Average age at time of conversion was 54.4 years (range, 30-68 years). Median time to conversion was 5.14 (2.77-7.41) years and median follow-up post-conversion was 1.7 (0.33-4.0) years. There were no significant differences in indications for conversion between the 2 groups with the majority performed for complications related to elevated metal ions and aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores improved from pre-conversion to post-conversion in both cohorts (P < .01). There were no significant differences in pre-conversion and post-conversion metal ion levels between the RAC and BC groups. Serum metal ion levels decreased significantly in both cohorts (P < .01). There were 6 additional revisions in the cohort (4 in BC, 2 in RAC) at a median 2.94 (1.99-3.85) years post-conversion. Two RAC patients had intraprosthetic dislocations with extensive polyethylene wear requiring acetabular revision at median 3.92 (3.85-3.98) years post-conversion. Overall, there were a higher number of complications in the BC group related to acetabular fracture, failure of osseointegration, and periprosthetic joint infection; however, this did not reach statistical significance (P = .27).

CONCLUSION

Salvage of an appropriately positioned, well-fixed HRA acetabular component is a reasonable option in the setting of conversion to THA using dual-mobility components. This technique avoids the morbidity of acetabular revision and was associated with a decrease in metal ion levels and improvements in short-term functional outcomes comparable to a BC revision.

Femoral side-only revision options for the Birmingham resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system (Smith and Nephew) was developed as an alternative to conventional total joint replacement for younger, more active patients. Among other complications exists the risk for femoral component failure. The only marketed revision option for such a complication involves exchange of all components for a total replacement arthroplasty. This presents as a considerable and potentially unnecessary operative burden where revision of only the femoral prosthesis would suffice. We have analysed revision options for BHR in the context of periprosthetic femoral fractures with a stable acetabular component.

METHODS

Technical details of dual mobility hip systems available in Australia were collated and analysed to assess for potential 'off label' use with an existing BHR acetabular component. These data were then compared with the custom-made Smith and Nephew dual mobility implant with respect to clearance and sizing.

RESULTS

Two dual mobility articulation modalities from two companies were identified as appropriate for potential usage with four products analysed in detail. These two demonstrated acceptable sizing and clearance measurements.

CONCLUSION

Comparison between readily available dual mobility prostheses with custom-made implants showed off label dual mobility prosthetic use to be a viable alternative for femoral-only revisions with in situ BHR. Single component revision has several advantages which include: a less complex surgical procedure, shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and the expectation of resultant lower morbidity. Furthermore, this less complex revision surgery should give comparable results to that of primary total hip arthroplasty.

Predictive factors for metal ion levels in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Although metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacings (HR) have similar bearing surfaces and comparable wear rates, metal ion levels and risk of failure are higher for MoM-THA. The mechanism behind the increased metal ion levels in large head MoM-THA is not completely understood. The current study aims to identify predictive factors for increased metal ion levels in unilateral and bilateral large head MoM-THA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

99 Birmingham modular MoM-THA in 87 patients with metal ion levels at least 36 months after index procedure were analyzed. Mean follow-up time was 61.3 months (range 37-108) and the relationship of the following variables (gender, age, BMI, follow-up time, UCLA Activity Score, cup inclination, femoral head size, bilateral surgery) on metal ion levels were analyzed with multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Multivariate regression analysis revealed that bilateral MoM-THA surgery (p < 0.001) had a positive predictive effect on cobalt serum levels, while BMI had a negative (p = 0.018). Female gender (p = 0.012), activity (p = 0.001) and bilateral MoM-THA (p = 0.004) were positively correlated with chromium levels. Positive independent predictors for the cobalt-chromium ratio in the multivariate analysis were overall follow-up time (p = 0.004), bilateral MoM-THA (p < 0.001) and femoral head size (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The data of the current study suggest that bilateral MoM-THA, increased patient activity levels and female gender are associated with increased chromium levels. Patients with larger component size, longer follow-up time and bilateral MoM-THAs have an increased cobalt-chromium ratio. These patients might be at increased risk for adverse local soft tissue reactions secondary to corrosion. Continuous close monitoring is recommended and bearing-surface change should be discussed if local tissue reactions occur.

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) has proven to be a good alternative for younger patients with osteoarthritis. Some have asserted that BHR may yield outcomes which are superior to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and that some studies which failed to show a difference were plagued by ceiling effects and lack of sensitivity of outcome measures. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of BHR and THA using the "Forgotten Joint" Score-12 (FJS), a more sensitive score with lesser vulnerability to the ceiling effect.

METHODS

Patients who underwent BHR were matched to patients who underwent posterior THA by computing a propensity score using 5 covariates: age, body mass index, gender, worker's compensation claims, and previous hip surgery. Surgical outcomes were assessed using 6 patient-reported outcome measures, including the FJS, the visual analog scale for pain, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 42 patients in the BHR group and 18 patients in the THA group. The FJS was 78.0 for the BHR group and 76.0 for the THA group. The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Component Summary and Short Form 12 Mental Component Summary were significantly higher in the BHR group. No differences were seen between all other patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

BHR offers excellent results in young patients that are comparable to THA. As no clinical difference could be shown between BHR and THA, even with the use of the FJS, the choice between BHR and THA should not be based solely on any expectation that either yields superior clinical outcomes compared to the other at short-term follow-up.

Salvage of a monoblock metal-on-metal cup using a dual mobility liner: a two-year MRI follow-up study

PURPOSE

Revision of failed modular metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-THA) can be technically difficult. A dual mobility liner can help to salvage a well-fixed acetabular component. The present paper reports the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision of failed Birmingham modular MoM-THA using a dual mobility liner.

METHODS

The present study reports on ten patients (3 female and 7 male) with 11 revision THAs. Patients underwent revision an average of 51 months (range 40-73 months) after index procedure. Mean follow-up after the revision was 31 months (range 24-37 months) and all patients underwent an MRI with metal artifact reduction software (MARS) at least two years after revision to assess for local polyethylene wear and osteolysis.

RESULTS

The Harris Hip score improved from 92.2 (range 63.0-100.0) to 100.0 (p = 0.072). One patient had a one-time dislocation within seven days of surgery. No patient required additional surgeries. Radiographs showed no signs of component loosening and osteolysis and MRI imaging revealed no evidence of polyethylene wear or osteolysis.

CONCLUSION

A dual mobility liner in an existing Birmingham cup can provide excellent clinical and radiological short-term results without MRI evidence of increased polyethylene wear. Post-operative hip precautions should be enforced.