Revision of Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: Midterm Outcomes of 203 Consecutive Cases

Bone graft incorporation failure with inappropriate limb load transfer can lead to aseptic acetabular loosening of metal-on-metal prosthesis: A case report

BACKGROUND

Aseptic acetabular loosening can result from various factors that can be categorized into groups: patient-related, surgeon-related and implant-related. We present a case of a 63-year-old patient who at first underwent a total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a metal-on-metal bearing due to hip arthrosis. Follow-up visits revealed no complications after the procedure. Two years after the THA, acetabular component loosening occurred due to subsequent trauma of the opposite hip, necessitating a revision THA using a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing.

CASE SUMMARY

We aim to illustrate a rare case where the primary reason for undergoing THA revision was not only incomplete bone graft incorporation but also improper limb load distribution. Following the revision arthroplasty, a 9-year follow-up visit revealed improvements in all evaluation measures on questionnaire compared to the state before surgery: Harris Hip Score (before surgery: 15; after surgery: 95), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (before surgery: 96; after surgery: 0), and Visual Analogue Scale (before surgery: 10; after surgery: 1).

CONCLUSION

Opposite-hip trauma caused a weight transfer to the limb after a THA procedure. This process led to a stress shielding effect, resulting in acetabular component loosening.

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.

Is there still an indication for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in femoral head osteonecrosis?

PURPOSE

Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is a progressive hip disease. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a preferred surgical procedure among hip arthroplasty performed in young patients. The aim of this study is to show the long-term clinical and radiological results of HRA procedures performed for patients suffering from ONFH.

METHODS

Forty-five patients who underwent hip resurfacing with the diagnosis of femoral head osteonecrosis were included in the study. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was used for clinical scoring of the patients. The blood chromium, cobalt, white blood cell (WBC) count, and CRP levels of patients were checked. Ultrasonography (USG) was performed for all patients at mid-term control checked for pseudo-tumours. For the radiological evaluation, acetabular inclination, stem shaft angle, prothesis-to-neck ratio, osteolysis zones, and heterotopic ossification were used.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 46.6 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 11.83 ± 2.9 years. The mean HHS was 90.3 ± 12.8 for final follow-up. The mean WBC value was 8.2 109/L, mean CRP value was 6.3 mg/L, mean chromium value was 4.9 µg/L, and mean cobalt value was 1.8 µg/L. Inclination changing 0.2°(p = 0.788), stem shaft angle changing 0.7°(p = 0.424), and neck-to-prosthesis ratio changing 0.01°(p = 0.075). No pseudo-tumours were detected in any patients in USG examination.

CONCLUSION

HRA provides long-term implant survival and excellent clinical outcomes for end-stage ONFH patients with low complication rates.

Under-reporting by surgical pathologists in tissue removed during revision surgery for metal-on-metal arthroplasties

Although adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) have been reported for metal-on-metal implants (MoM) requiring early revision surgery, no study has looked at the accuracy of surgical pathologists in diagnosing ALTR. This study aims to investigate the accuracy of reporting adverse local tissue reactions in tissue samples following revision surgery from metal-on-metal implants. The authors reviewed histology glass slides as well as the original pathology reports of tissue processed in revision arthroplasties in 23 cases. These samples were microscopically analyzed for tissue necrosis and cystic degeneration, the presence of metal particles, corrosion byproducts, membrane formation, histiocytic cells, lymphocytic cells, and vascular pathology. The authors' findings were then compared to their corresponding original pathology reports. The authors found consistent under-reporting of the tissue findings. Most importantly, 18 samples showed evidence of metal present compared to 2 samples on original pathology reporting. The authors found that 15 samples showed evidence of pathological membranous tissue compared to just 6 on original pathology reporting. While just 3 of the original pathology reports indicated the presence of areas of predominantly lymphocytic inflammatory cells, the authors found 13 examples of such areas. Although ALTR reactions have been described as a sequala of failed MoM, the authors' data suggest that ALTR may occur more frequently than previously described. Under-reported findings of ALTR deprive both the patient and orthopaedic surgeon of important information that can help guide further follow-up.

The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings

PURPOSE

Revision of failed large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure particularly to reconstruct acetabular bone defect due to osteolysis and to achieve hip stability due to soft tissue damages, both potentially caused by adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of dual mobility cup (DMC) constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with a special attention to the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 57 patients (64 THAs, 41 men, mean age = 65 ± 10 years) underwent revision for MoM THA with the use of DMC were prospectively included in our total joint registry. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years. The causes for revision were adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in 49 THAs (76%), painful hip with elevated blood cobalt-chromium ions in seven (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight (13%). The revision was complete in 22 THAs (34%) and acetabular only in 42 (66%). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-revisions were evaluated at most recent follow-up.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up of six ± 1.5 years, the pre- to postoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 74 ± 19 to 92 ± 4 (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 11 cases (17%): five dislocations (8%), three periprosthetic infections (5%), two aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3%), and two periprosthetic fractures (3%). Re-revision was required in six cases (9%).

CONCLUSION

The use of DMC is a reliable option to prevent instability and ensure a stable acetabular reconstruction in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings. However, dislocation after revision remains a concern, particularly in cases of severe soft tissue damage related to ARMD.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Ethical Considerations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Hip and knee arthroplasty surgeries have excellent outcomes and notably improve quality of life. However, ethical issues permeate the practice of adult reconstruction, and as economics and technology evolve, these issues have become increasingly important. This article will review the currently published literature on ethical issues including industry influences, implants and instrumentations, surgical innovation, new technology adoptions, and healthcare policy-relevant issues, including patient cost sharing and bundled care programs. In addition, the direct marketing of implants from the manufacturer to the general public may falsely raise patient expectations concerning the long-term clinical outcome and performance of newer devices in the absence of long-term studies. This article will also focus on relevant contemporary ethical issues that do not necessarily have preexisting published literature or guidelines but, nonetheless, are crucial for adult reconstruction surgeons to address. These issues include access to care and challenges with orthopaedic resident and fellow education. Surgeons must understand the ethical issues that can arise in their clinical practice and how those issues affect patients. Clinicians are tasked with making the best-reasoned judgment possible to optimize their patients' outcomes. Still, the ability to standardize treatment while optimizing individual outcomes for unique patients remains a challenge.

Long-term Follow-up on Revisions of a Recalled Large Head Metal-on-metal Hip Prosthesis: A Single Surgeon Series

Background

In 2010, a recall was issued for a specific monoblock large head metal-on-metal (MoM) hip prosthesis due to short-term revision rates of 12%-13% (articular surface replacement, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Warsaw, IN). High complication, infection, and rerevision rates for revised MoM implants have been reported. The purpose of the study is to report long-term outcomes and trend metal ion levels of this recalled MoM prosthesis from a single surgeon series.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent revision of large MoM hip replacements between 2010 and 2015. Pre- and post-revision Harris Hip Score (HHS), cup abduction angles, anteversion angles, and cup sizes were compared. Survivorship and HHS were the primary outcomes measured; serum cobalt and chromium levels were secondary outcomes. Multivariate linear regression was used to examine the correlation between prerevision serum metal ion levels and HHS.

Results

A total of 24 hips (21 patients) met inclusion criteria. Mean time to revision was 4.12 years ± 1.1. Mean follow-up was 10.0 years (7-11.9 years). Mean HHS increased significantly after revision from 48.5 to 89.5 (P < .001). Higher prerevision cobalt levels were correlated with lower prerevision HHS (cobalt R = 0.25; chromium R = 0.3160). There was no correlation with prerevision cobalt (P = .2671) or chromium (P = .3160) with postrevision HHS. Most recent metal ion testing revealed a significant decrease in both cobalt (P = .0084) and chromium (P = .0115). Survival rate is 100%.

Conclusions

Our study showed excellent survivorship and outcomes at 10 years. There were no failures for any reason including infection. This differs from previous studies and confirms excellent long-term results are possible with revision of this recalled MoM implant.

Limited need for screening of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients beyond 10 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines lack consistency on how to screen metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty patients for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Long-term outcomes of MoM hip arthroplasty are scarce, hindering further development of such guidelines. We present the clinical, radiological and ARMD status of 158 cases of hip resurfacing with >10 years follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective analysis of a cohort of 298 consecutive hip resurfacing procedures was performed at a single institution. All patients underwent MARS-MRI scanning for pseudotumour screening at least once, regardless of symptoms. Implant survival and reasons for revision were analysed for all patients. Clinical, radiological and MARS-MRI results were analysed for 158 unrevised procedures with >10 years follow-up.

RESULTS

The implant survival was 85.9% at 14.5 years (95% CI, 81.9-90.6) with revision for all causes as endpoint and 92.3% with MoM disease-related revisions excluded (95% CI, 88.2-95.0). Of the 158 cases with >10 years follow-up, 1 had elevated metal ion levels, 29 had a stable C1 pseudotumour and 6 a stable C2 pseudotumour. All pseudotumours were observed within 3 years after initiating our intensified ARMD screening (2011), with no new pseudotumours observed after that period.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that follow-up of MoM hip resurfacing patients beyond 10 years after surgery can be done with large intervals (i.e. every 5 years), and only earlier if a patient becomes symptomatic.

Comparison of the long-term cause of failure and survivorship of four hundred and twenty seven metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: resurfacing versus large head total hip arthroplasty

Introduction

Comparison of mid- to long-term cause of failure and survivorship of metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and large head total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains sparse. This study aimed to identify and compare the cause of failure and survivorship of MoM RHA and THA at a minimum ten year follow-up.

Methods

Four hundred twenty-seven MoM hip arthroplasties (286 THA and 141 RHA) were retrospectively analyzed at a mean follow-up of 13 ± three years. Causes of failure were reported as MoM specific (i.e., adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and painful hip with ion elevation) or MoM non-specific (i.e., fracture, infection, and dislocation). Chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) ion levels and Co/Cr ratio were compared. Survivorship was compared according to the cause of failure with revision as the endpoint.

Results

The rate of ARMD was significantly higher in THA (OR = 2.9 [95%-CI: 1–7]; p = 0.02). No significant difference was detected in failure rate due to other causes between the two groups (p = 0.2–0.9). Ion levels and Co/Cr ratio were both significantly higher in THA (p < 0.01). Survivorship was significantly lower in THA compared to RHA at ten years [89% (95%-CI: 85%–91%) vs 96% (95%-CI: 91%–98%); p = 0.01] and 15 years [73% (95%-CI: 67%–78%) vs 83% (95%-CI: 73%–90%); p = 0.01].

Conclusion

RHA survivorship was significantly higher at any time point. Failure rate due to ARMD was significantly higher in THA while no significant difference in other causes of failure was observed between the two groups. This result emphasizes the role of fretting corrosion at the head-neck junction (i.e., trunnionosis) with significantly higher ion levels and Co/Cr ratio dissociation in THA.

Impact of perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in aseptic total knee revision

AIMS

A limited number of investigations with conflicting results have described perivascular lymphocytic infiltration (PVLI) in the setting of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to determine if PVLI found in TKAs at the time of aseptic revision surgery was associated with worse clinical outcomes and survivorship.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 617 patients who underwent aseptic TKA revision who had histological analysis for PVLI at the time of surgery. Clinical and radiological data were obtained pre- and postoperatively, six weeks postoperatively, and then every year thereafter.

RESULTS

Within this cohort, 118 patients (19.1%) were found to have PVLI on histological analysis. Re-revision was performed on 83 patients (13.4%) with no significant differences in all-cause or aseptic revisions between groups. A higher incidence of PVLI was noted in female patients (p = 0.037). There was no significant difference in improvement in the range of motion (p = 0.536), or improvement of KSC (p = 0.66), KSP (p = 0.61), or KSF (p = 0.3) clinical outcome scores between PVLI and no PVLI sub-groups. There was a higher incidence of a preoperative diagnosis of pain in the PVLI group compared with patients without PVLI (p = 0.002) present.

CONCLUSION

PVLI found on large-scale histological analysis in TKAs at aseptic revision surgery was not associated with worse clinical outcomes or rates of re-revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):145-149.

Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C).

METHODS

Patient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 84.12 (67-100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66-101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR).

CONCLUSION

In the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.

Mid-term outcomes of uncemented or cemented arthroplasty revision following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty failure: a retrospective observational study

Objective

To retrospectively compare the mid-term outcomes of uncemented or cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision for prior primary metal-on-metal (MoM) THA failure.

Methods

Data from 278 patients (278 hips) who underwent uncemented THA (UTHA) or cemented THA (CTHA) for prior primary MoM-THA failure from 2006 to 2016 were retrospectively analysed. Follow-up was performed 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and then every 2 years after conversion. The mean follow-up time was 96 months (range, 64–128 months). The primary endpoint was the modified Harris hip score (HHS). The secondary endpoint was the major orthopaedic complication rate.

Results

The HHS showed significantly greater differences in the CTHA than UTHA group 12 months after conversion. From the 12th month after conversion to the final follow-up, CTHA yielded better functional outcomes than UTHA. There were significant differences between the UTHA and CTHA groups in the rates of re-revision (14.4% vs. 4.9%, respectively), aseptic loosening (17.3% vs. 6.8%, respectively), and periprosthetic fracture (11.5% vs. 3.9%, respectively).

Conclusion

CTHA has more advantages than UTHA in terms of improving functional outcomes and decreasing the major orthopaedic complication rate.

Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty using cemented arthroplasty: a mean 10-year follow-up of 157 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to assess the outcomes of Asian patients who underwent conversion from metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM-THA) to cemented THA (CTHA).

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-seven consecutive patients (157 hips) who underwent CTHA following primary MoM-THA from January 2005 to February 2015 were retrospectively analysed. The primary endpoints were the clinical outcomes. Follow-ups occurred at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and then every 2 years following revision of MoM-THA.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up after conversion was 10 years (range, 5-14 years). Statistically significant improvements in the mean Harris hip score were observed between the preoperative and final follow-up evaluations (62.71 ± 13.85 vs. 84.03 ± 16.21, respectively). The major orthopaedic complication rate was 16.5% (26/157). Six (3.8%) patients underwent revision at a mean of 3.5 ± 1.3 years after conversion, predominantly because of prosthesis loosening or recurrent dislocation. Nine (5.7%) patients developed prosthesis loosening at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.1 years following conversion, two of whom requested revision surgery. Eleven (7.0%) patients developed prosthesis dislocation, four of whom requested revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

CTHA may yield favourable functional outcomes and a reduced rate of major orthopaedic complications.

Is there a relation between clinical scores and serum ion levels after MoM-THA? One year results in 383 implants

Background and aim of the work:

Adverse reaction to metal debris is the major cause of the high revision rates of metal on metal hip implants with femoral head size ≥ 36mm. Health authorities recommend regular surveillance even for asymptomatic individuals. The main investigations used are Co+ and Cr+ serum levels, x-rays and, eventually, ultrasound and MARS-MRI. Clinic is also assessed. The aim of this study is to identify if there is a relation between ion levels and the clinical scores in order to evaluate the outcome and plan the correct management after this type of implant.

Methods:

383 subjects were included and divided in 3 groups (serum ion levels >, < and >60 µg/L). Co+, Cr+, HHS and OHS results of 1 year (2017) were analysed in order to show a correlation between ion levels and clinical scores.

Results:

Clinical scores were similar in group 1 and 2. Differences were observed comparing the group 1 and 2 with group 3 for both variables.

Discussion and Conclusions:

Surveillance algorithms have been introduced by health authorities. Nevertheless, the indication to revision surgery is not simple especially in those cases in which a discrepancy between clinic and investigations is present. In this study clinical scores seem to be less important than ion levels in the evaluation of outcomes and in order to plan the correct management in the majority of cases. Larger studies are needed to highlight the real importance of clinical scores in the decision making after these type of implants.

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.

Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Revisions: Pearls and Pitfalls

BACKGROUND

At the turn of the 21st century, there was a re-emergence of metal-on-metal (MoM) articulation with 35% of all total hip arthroplasty implants having MoM articulation. Approximately 10 years after its peak use, MoM articulation began to decrease dramatically as revisions became more apparent because of adverse reaction to metal debris. Today, there are surveillance guidelines and reconstructive clinical pearls a surgeon should recognize.

METHODS

This article gives a literature-based overview of clinical pearls and discusses how to avoid pitfalls when performing revision of a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Patients with MoM can be risk-stratified based on symptom, implant, and testing variables. Those patients who are symptomatic and/or develop adverse reaction to metal debris with local tissue destruction will require a revision. The revision of MoM can be challenging due to bone and soft tissue destruction. Constraint may be needed in cases of abductor deficiency.

CONCLUSION

Although MoM implants for THA have declined significantly, surgeons are still faced with the revision burden from a decade of high use. Risk stratification tools are available to aid in revision decision making, and the surgeon should be prepared to address the challenges these revisions present.