No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions

Case report: Formation and recurrence of inflammatory pseudotumor after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty

The metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip joint is a prosthesis used in early hip arthroplasty, particularly for hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. However, abrasion and corrosion of MoM bearings result in the production of metal ions, such as cobalt and chromium, thereby inducing several complications such as inflammatory pseudotumor, aseptic inflammation, and allergy to metal ions (delayed type IV hypersensitivity). In this case report, we present a patient who was hospitalized for recurrence of a mass in the right inguinal area. In 2010, the patient underwent right MoM total hip arthroplasty for right femoral head necrosis and exhibited a good postoperative recovery. In 2019, the patient experienced pain in the right hip with activity limitation without any evident triggers, and a palpable mass was observed in the right inguinal area. A large periprosthetic mass was resected under general anesthesia, and the patient recovered well after the operation. Based on post-surgery imaging and pathological examinations, the mass was diagnosed as a periprosthetic inflammatory pseudotumor. In 2021, the inflammatory pseudotumor recurred at the same site. He then underwent right total hip revision surgery under epidural anesthesia and recovered well after surgery. No recurrence was noted at moderate follow-up. The incidence of inflammatory pseudotumors is high in MoM hip arthroplasty. Early revision is necessary in patients who meet the indications for revision, while regular postoperative follow-up is crucial.

Adverse Metal Reaction in a Case of Metal-on-Polyethylene Hip Arthroplasty

Soft tissue inflammatory responses to metal debris from prostheses, categorised as adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), are frequent complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and often result in implant failure. Introducing modular implant designs in modern orthopaedics has brought benefits to total hip replacements but has also increased patients' susceptibility to corrosion-related risks. ARMD can develop from various metal articulating surfaces, including ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), metal-on-metal (MoM), and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) configurations. In this case study, a 68-year-old male who underwent a MoP implant for osteoarthritis of the right hip 16 years ago presented with pain and difficulty walking, exacerbated over the past three months. Clinical examination revealed tenderness around the implant and a limited range of motion. Imaging studies, including X-rays and ultrasound-guided aspiration, coupled with normal serum and urinary cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels, confirmed the diagnosis of ARMD. Given the severity of symptoms and radiographic findings, surgical intervention was warranted, leading to a two-stage revision with implant augmentation using a Burch-Schneider cage. Three months post operation, the patient experienced significant improvements in pain levels, range of motion (ROM), and hip function. This case underscores the importance of vigilant surveillance for ARMD in patients undergoing non-MoM THA, even years post surgery. Prompt recognition and management of ARMD are crucial to mitigate the risk of long-term complications and optimise patient outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the risk factors and mechanisms underlying ARMD in MoP THA, aiding in developing preventive strategies and refined treatment protocols.

Long-term outcomes of the Universal 2 total wrist replacement: revision and loosening at 10 years and beyond

The aim of this study was to ascertain the long-term revision rates of the Universal 2 wrist prosthesis in a previously published cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The time to, and reasons for revision were determined. Radiographs were analysed to determine whether loosening had occurred in the long-term according to the Wrightington zonal classification of loosening. Seventy-eight wrists from the original cohort of 85 wrists could be identified for analysis. The longest follow-up was 16 years and 29 wrists had follow-up beyond 10 years. Seventeen wrists had been revised or were on the waiting list for revision, an overall revision rate of 22%. The 10-year survivorship was 78%. Long-term revision was commonly for periprosthetic loosening with pain and component subsidence. In those with more than 10-year follow-up, significant lucency was seen in 16 carpal components and 15 radial components. Explant analysis showed significant polyethylene wear and we postulate this is the principal reason for component loosening.Level of evidence: IV.

[Postoperative outcomes and survival rates after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty : What can patients expect from revision surgery?]

BACKGROUND

In 2020, more than 14,000 aseptic revision procedures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were registered in Germany. Patient expectations of revision hip arthroplasty are not substantially different from expectations of primary hip replacement.

OUTCOME

However, revision surgery is associated with increased complication rates and a higher proportion of dissatisfied patients. In particular, poorer postoperative function and mobility as well as increased pain levels following revision THA have been described compared to the outcome after primary THA. Quality of life and return-to-work can also be impaired.

SURVIVAL RATE

Implant survival is influenced by age, BMI, and comorbidities of the patients, but also by the size and complexity of bone defects, the extent of periprosthetic soft tissue compromise and the choice of revision implant(s). In addition, the number of previous revision surgeries inversely correlates with the survival rates. Previous revisions have been shown to be associated with increased risks of aseptic loosening, instability and periprosthetic infection.

A Rare Case of Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in a Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement

Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris (ARMD) is one of the most frequent complications after Total Hip Replacement (THR) and often a cause of surgical revision. This is true especially for implants with Metal-on-Metal (MoM) and Large Diameter Heads (LDHs), which are frequently used to improve stability and reduce the risk of dislocation. However, ARMD is not exclusive to MoM replacement, as it can also occur in other implants such Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC), Metal-on-Polyethylene (MoP), and Ceramic-on-Polyethylene (CoP). In these non-MoM implants, ARMD is not caused by the tribo-corrosion between bearing surfaces but, rather, by the fretting at the interface between neck and stem of dissimilar metals. A case of a severe ARMD that happened to a 73-year-old female patient with CoC bearing THR at the right hip is presented in this case report. In this case, the ARMD was misdiagnosed for over a year, resulting in the development of a massive pseudotumor. The treatment of choice was a two-stage revision with the implant of a hip megaprosthesis. After more than 2 years of follow-up, complete recovery of hip Range of Motion (ROM) and normalization of chromium and cobalt levels in blood and urine were achieved. Despite the relatively short follow-up period, this can be considered a successful treatment of a major and misdiagnosed ARMD in a non-MoM hip replacement.

Favourable clinical outcomes following cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 10 years

BACKGROUND

Given the unexpected high rate of failure following metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-THR), it is expected that more MoM-THR patients will experience revision. The long-term outcomes regarding the primary MoM-THR revised to cemented THR (CTHR) remain controversial. The purpose of this retrospective review was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion from MoM-THR to CTHR.

METHODS

A total of 220 patients (220 hips) who underwent a conversion of primary MoM-THR to CTHR from March 2006 to October 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes were the functional outcomes assessed using the Harris hip scores (HHS) and major radiographic outcomes. Follow-ups occurred at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and then every two years after revision.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5-13 years). Distinct improvements were detected in the mean HHS between the preoperative and last follow-up analysis (62.35[±8.49] vs. 84.70[±14.68], respectively, p < 0.001). The key orthopaedic complication rate was 18.2% (27/148). Seven (4.7%) cases experienced a CTHR failure at a mean of 3.4 (±1.2) years after revision MoM-THR, mostly attributed to recurrent dislocation.

CONCLUSION

CTHR might yield an acceptable functional score and a low rate of the key orthopaedic complications.

Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris

Background and purpose - There is limited amount of evidence about optimal revision indications, technique, and implants when performing revision surgery for metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed which factors are related to re-revisions and complications after a revision of MoM hip arthroplasty because of ARMD. We also aimed to provide information on optimal implants for these revisions.Patients and methods - 420 MoM total hip arthroplasties (THA) and 108 MoM hip resurfacings were implanted and later revised at our institution. We used Cox regression to analyze the factors associated with re-revisions and complications after a revision for ARMD.Results - A re-revision was performed on 27 THAs (6%) and 9 resurfacings (8%). The most common indication for re-revision was recurrent dislocation (20 hips, 4%). Complications not leading to re-revision were seen in 21 THAs (5%) and 6 resurfacings (6%). The most common complication was dislocation treated with closed reduction in 13 hips (2%). Use of revision head size > 36mm was associated with decreased risk for dislocations. Presence of pseudotumor, pseudotumor grade, pseudotumor size, or the choice of bearing couple were not observed to affect the risk for re-revision. Non-linear association was observed between preoperative cobalt and risk for re-revision.Interpretation - As dislocation was the most frequent post-revision complication, large head sizes should be used in revisions. Because size or type of pseudotumor were not associated with risk of re-revision, clinicians may have to reconsider, how much weight is put on the imaging findings when deciding whether or not to revise. In our data blood cobalt was associated with risk for re-revision, but this finding needs further assessment.

The cement-in-cement technique is a reliable option in hip arthroplasty revision surgery: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The cement-in-cement technique for revision hip arthroplasty has many potential advantages and has recently gained widespread interest but still lacks evidence to support it. Our aim was to examine the surgical and patient-reported outcomes after cement-in-cement revision hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to February 2019 for original studies reporting the outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty surgeries using the cement-in-cement technique. The methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scale.

RESULTS

Sixteen non-comparative studies met the eligibility criteria, comprising 1899 hips in 1856 patients (72.2 mean age, 37% male), with a mean follow-up of 7.2 years. Most studies reported only primary revisions and focused on the stem component. Intraoperative complications such as femoral or acetabular fractures (5.3%) were low and easily manageable with no relevant sequelae, as were dislocation rates (2.8% of uncomplicated events and 1.6% of cases requiring re-revision). Failure (considered if there was aseptic loosening of the cement-in-cement revised component, 2%), re-revision (9.3%), implant survival and late complication rates were favourable. Functional patient-reported outcomes showed an overall improvement above the minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The cement-in-cement technique is a viable option for hip arthroplasty revision surgery with low intraoperative and late complication rates, dislocations and immediate post-operative morbidity, resulting in good functional patient-reported outcomes and favourable medium-term implant survival.

Whole blood titanium metal ion measurement reproducibility of two laboratories

Background

Metal ion blood concentrations evaluation can be useful in monitoring wear and corrosion of orthopedic implants. Elevated metal ion level may help detecting defective hip arthroplasty implants and serve as an indicator for revision surgery. Our objective was to evaluate the reproducibility of titanium metal ion level measurements by two different laboratories.

Methods

Seventy-one whole blood samples were collected from 64 patients with unilateral ceramic-on-ceramic hip arthroplasty. For each patient, two whole blood samples were collected and analyzed in two different laboratories.

Results

For each case, laboratory 1 had significantly higher values than laboratory 2. There was a clinically significant absolute difference between the two laboratories, above the predetermined threshold, for 90% of samples. A mean variation ratio of 410% between the two laboratories was found.

Conclusion

Not all laboratories use the same techniques and calibrations to perform these measurements. Therefore, their results should be interpreted with caution and clinical decision should rely on metal ion trends provided by the same laboratory.

Has the threshold for revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris changed in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? A cohort study of 239 patients using an adapted risk-stratification algorithm

Background and purpose - A risk-stratification algorithm for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients was devised by US experts to help clinicians make management decisions. However, the proposed algorithm did not cover all potential patient or surgical abnormalities. Therefore we adapted the US risk-stratification algorithm in MoMHA patients revised for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) to determine the variability in the revision threshold, and also whether high-risk patients had inferior outcomes following revision.Patients and methods - We analysed 239 MoMHA revisions for ARMD between 2001 and 2016 from 2 centres with pre-revision blood metal ions and imaging. Patients were stratified (low risk, moderate risk, high risk) using pre-revision factors (implant, radiographic, blood metal ions, cross-sectional imaging) by adapting a published algorithm. The risk categories for each factor were assessed against revision year, revision centre, and post-revision outcomes (re-revision surgery, and any poor outcome).Results - Compared with hips revised before 2012, hips revised from 2012 onwards included more high-risk implants (44% vs. 17% pre-2012), high-risk radiographic features (85% vs. 69% pre-2012), and low-risk metal ions (41% vs. 19% pre-2012). 1 centre more frequently revised patients with high-risk implants (48% vs. 14%) and low-risk blood metal ions (45% vs. 15%) compared with the other. All these comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05). With the limited sample size available, implant, radiographic, blood metal ion, and cross-sectional imaging risk groups did not statistically significantly affect the rates of re-revision surgery or frequency of poor outcomes post-revision.Interpretation - When applying the adapted risk-stratification algorithm the threshold for ARMD revision changed over time, presumably due to increasing evidence, patient surveillance, and investigation since 2012. Lower blood metal ion thresholds were used from 2012 for ARMD revisions; however, there was evidence that centres attached different importance to metal ions when managing patients. High-risk patients did not have inferior outcomes following ARMD revision.