Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement-the value of a randomized clinical trial

Femoral Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An 11-Year Retrospective Comparison of 4013 Cases

BACKGROUND

The optimal femoral fixation method remains unclear. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (739 hips) with cemented femoral components; group 2 (3274 hips) with uncemented femoral components.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, and radiographic measurements. Groups were consecutive, so cemented cases had longer follow-up. However, all patients from both groups were at least 2 years out from surgery. Two-year clinical and radiographic data were compared. Longer-term comparison data as well as Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves specifically focusing on femoral failure modes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier 10-year implant survivorship using nontraumatic femoral failure as an end point was 98.9% for the cemented and 100% for the uncemented femoral component. The uncemented, group 2 cases showed a significantly lower raw failure rate (1.1% vs 4.6%), 2-year failure rate (0.8% vs 2.8%), 2-year femoral failure rate (0.4% vs 0.9%), and a lower combined rate of femoral complications and failures (0.6% vs 1.8%). In cases that did not fail, patient mean clinical scores, pain scores, and combined range of motion were all significantly better for group 2.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that in the fully porous-coated ReCap device, uncemented femoral fixation is superior to cemented fixation at 11 years follow-up (0.0% vs 1.1% late femoral loosening) in this single-surgeon cohort. Early femoral fractures also reduced from 0.8% to 0.3%, but this may be partially or completely due to a new bone density management program. This study demonstrates better femoral implant survivorship for the uncemented device compared to the cemented femoral resurfacing component for this implant design.

Acetabular Debonding: An Investigation of Porous Coating Delamination in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Background

To date, there have been no published investigations on the cause of acetabular debonding, a rare failure phenomenon in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing where the acetabular porous coating delaminates from the implant while remaining well fixed to the pelvic bone.

Purposes

This study aims to summarize the current understanding of acetabular debonding and to investigate the discrepancy in rate of debonding between two implant systems.

Patients and Methods

To elucidate potential causes of debonding, we retrospectively analyzed a single-surgeon cohort of 839 hip resurfacing cases. Specifically, we compared rate of debonding and manufacturing processes between two implant systems.

Results

Group 1 experienced significantly more cases of debonding than Group 2 cases (4.0% versus 0.0%, p value<0.0001). Implant manufacturing processes differed in surface coating, heat treatment, postmanufacturing treatment, and apex thickness. Debonded implants were more likely to have missed RAIL guidelines (p=0.04).

Conclusions

We identified implant system, postoperative time, and acetabular component placement as variables contributing to rate of debonding. We recommend minimizing acetabular inclination angle according to RAIL guidelines. Further, we evaluated manufacturing differences between the two implant systems but did not have access to proprietary data to identify the cause of debonding. Both implants met ASTM standards, yet only the Group 1 implant debonded. This suggests the second implant had greater fatigue shear strength. Because the Group 2 implant achieved a more durable interface that did not debond, we suggest the ASTM F1160 standard for fatigue shear strength be increased to that achieved by its manufacturer.

Level of Evidence II

A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data.

Comparison of revision risks and complication rates between total HIP replacement and HIP resurfacing within the similar age group

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Currently it is not clear whether age is a factor affecting revisions in total hip replacement (THR) and hip resurfacing (HR). This study aimed to investigate which of THR or HR has a higher risk in terms of revision and complication within similar age groups.

METHODS

A systemic review was performed for published literature research databases and local data and compared the two procedures under the condition that both groups of patients were age matched. Meta-analysis techniques were used to analyse revision and complication rates. Twenty-seven literature studies were included along with local audit data. In total, 2520 HR procedures were compared with age-matched 2526 of THR procedures.

MAIN FINDINGS

It was found that revision risk of HR is significantly higher than THR (risk ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.31, p < 0.0001), highlighting that HR has a slightly higher chance of reoperation when compared to THR within the similar age group population. In terms of complications, HR was found to have an advantage over THR (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

THR had a lower revision risk but a slightly higher complication risk than HR under the condition that the two surgical procedures were applied to similar age groups of patients. In other words, age has not played an important role in revision and complication. Survivorship cannot be measured as follow-up periods were different in the studies used.

Interventions for Improving Hip Resurfacing Outcomes in Women: A High-Volume, Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Women seeking surgical intervention for their hip disorders will often find total hip arthroplasty (THA) presented as their only option. THA, when compared with hip resurfacing arthroplasty, removes substantially more bone-stock, limits range-of-motion, exhibits increased dislocation risk, and presents greater overall 10-year mortality rate. Despite these risks, most surgeons continue to select against women for hip resurfacing because registries notoriously report inferior survivorship when compared with men and THA.

METHODS

We investigated the reasons for why resurfacing arthroplasty devices survive poorly in women to develop interventions which might improve hip resurfacing outcomes in women. Using these findings, we developed a series of surgical interventions to treat the underlying issues. Herein, we compare 2 study groups: women who received hip resurfacings before (group 1) and after (group 2) these interventions.

RESULTS

Eight-year implant survivorship substantially improved from 89.6% for group 1 to 97.7% for group 2. Adverse wear-related failure, femoral component loosening, and acetabular component loosening were all significantly reduced in group 2, which we attribute to the implementation of our relative acetabular inclination limit guidelines, use of uncemented femoral fixation, and selection of the Tri-Spike acetabular component for supplemental fixation, respectively. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves, grouped into 2-year time intervals, show that the disparity in failure rates between men and women is diminishing.

CONCLUSION

When experienced surgeons use refined and proper surgical technique, women show promise as excellent candidates for hip resurfacing as an alternative treatment for their debilitating hip conditions.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients younger than 50 years: a retrospective analysis : 1285 cases, 12-year survivorship

BACKGROUND

The Nordic registry reports patients under 50 years old with total hip replacements realize only 83% 10-year implant survivorship. These results do not meet the 95% 10-year survivorship guideline posed by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014.

METHODS

The purpose of this study is threefold: First, we evaluate if metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty meets these high standards in younger patients. Next, we compare outcomes between age groups to determine if younger patients are at higher risk for revision or complication. Lastly, we assess how outcomes between sexes changed over time. From January 2001 to August 2013, a single surgeon performed 1285 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings in patients younger than 50 years old. We compared these to an older cohort matched by sex and BMI.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was 96.5% at 10 years and 96.3% at 12 years; this did not differ from implant survivorship for older patients. Implant survivorship at 12 years was 98 and 93% for younger men and women, respectively; survivorship for women improved from 93 to 97% by using exclusively Biomet implants. There were four (0.3%) adverse wear-related failures, with no instances of wear or problematic ion levels since 2009. Activity scores improved from 5.4 ± 2.3 preoperatively to 7.6 ± 1.9 postoperatively (p < 0.0001), with 43% of patients reporting a UCLA activity score of 9 or 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip resurfacing exceeds the stricter 2014 NICE survivorship criteria independently in men and women even when performed on patients under 50 years old.

Comparison of Cemented and Bone Ingrowth Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing for Osteonecrosis

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and X-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all group 2 patients to be at least 2 years out from surgery; we compared results from 2 years and final follow-up.

RESULTS

Patient groups matched similarly in age, body mass index, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs 16%; P < .0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs 7%; P = .04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs 91%; log-rank P = .0028; Wilcoxon P = .0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (P = .05), activity (P = .02), and pain scores (P = .03), as well as acetabular component position (P < .0001), all improved in group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear-related failure in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices.

Balancing innovation and medical device regulation: the case of modern metal-on-metal hip replacements

Due to problems with wear particle generation and subsequent loosening using conventional metal-on-polyethylene total hip replacements, there has been a shift toward alternative bearing systems, including metal-on-metal (MoM), for younger, more active patients with degenerative joint disease. Based on positive results from early short-term clinical studies, MoM hip replacements were readily adopted by orthopedic surgeons with thousands being implanted worldwide over the past decade. Unacceptably high revision rates reported by two national joint registries called into question the rigorousness of the regulatory approval process for these implants, particularly with respect to premarket data requirements to prove safety, effectiveness, and the appropriateness of the regulatory pathway chosen. The purpose of this review was to investigate the balance between facilitating the introduction of new medical technologies and the need to ensure safety and effectiveness through comprehensive regulatory assessment. The case of MoM hip replacement devices was used to frame the investigation and subsequent discussions. The regulatory approval processes and post-market surveillance requirements associated with three common MoM hip replacements (two resurfacings: the Birmingham and articular surface replacement and the articular surface replacement XL total hip replacement) were investigated. With respect to modern MoM hip replacement devices, the balance between facilitating the introduction of these new medical technologies and the need to ensure safety and effectiveness through comprehensive regulatory assessment was not achieved. The lessons learned from these experiences have application beyond joint replacements to the introduction of new medical technologies in general, particularly for those who have a significant potential for harm. In this regard, a series of recommendations have been developed to contribute to the evolution of the medical device regulatory process.

Increased Mortality in Metal-on-Metal versus Non-Metal-on-Metal Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty at 10 Years and Longer Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IMPORTANCE

There are concerns about increased mortality in patients with metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the mortality and the morbidity in patients with metal-on-metal articulations (MOM THA) compared to patients with non-metal-on-metal articulations (non-MOM THA) after primary total hip arthroplasty.

DATA SOURCES

Search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, AcademicSearchPremier, ScienceDirect, Wiley and clinical trial registers through March 2015, augmented by a hand search of references from the included articles. No language restrictions were applied.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers screened and identified randomised controlled trials and observational studies of primary total hip arthroplasty comparing MOM THA with non-MOM THA.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Risk differences (RD) were calculated with random effect models. Meta-regression was used to explore modifying factors.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Difference in mortality and difference in morbidity expressed as revisions and medical complications between patients with MOM THA and non-MOM THA.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included, comprising 4,000 THA in randomised trials and over 500,000 THA in observational studies. For mortality, random effects analysis revealed a higher pooled RD of 0.7%, 95%, confidence interval (CI) [0.0%, 2.3%], I-square 42%; the heterogeneity was explained by differences in follow-up. When restricted to studies with long term follow-up (i.e. 10 years or more), the RD for mortality was 8.5%, 95%, CI [5.8%, 11.2%]; number needed to treat was 12. Further subgroup analyses and meta-regression random effects models revealed no evidence for other moderator variables (study level covariates, e.g. resurfacing vs. non-resurfacing MOM) than follow-up duration. The quality of the evidence presented in this meta-analysis was characterized as moderate according to the CLEAR-NPT (for non-pharmacological trials) and Cochrane risk of bias Table.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Meta-analysis suggests there may be an increased long-term risk of mortality and revision surgery for patients with MOM THA compared to patients with non-MOM THA.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014007417.

Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases

BACKGROUND

Arthritis secondary to developmental hip dysplasia often mandates implant surgery at a relatively young age. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), compared with standard stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA), affords a more active lifestyle including extreme-motion activities but stimulates concerns pertaining to implant failure.

METHODS

We addressed the primary modes of failure through a series of interventions, including a new guideline for achieving proper implant alignment through intraoperative x-rays. We then compared two sequential cohorts in a single-surgeon practice: patients with developmental dysplasia who underwent HRA before (Group 1; 121 hips in 105 patients) and after (Group 2; 242 hips in 210 patients) June 2008, at which time the four interventions were all in place.

RESULTS

Implants in Group 2 failed less frequently within two years (0.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.002) and were more likely to have projected seven-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship (99 % vs. 89 %, p < 0.0001 by log-rank test). Patients in Group 2 were more likely to have normal metal ion levels (77 % vs. 56 %, p = 0.0008) and optimum metal ion levels (99 % vs. 86 %, p = 0.0008). Patients in Group 2 also benefited from a 19-min decrease in mean operation time, a 45 % decrease in mean estimated blood loss, and a 0.9-day decrease in mean hospital stay (p < 0.0001 in each instance).

CONCLUSIONS

We believe the interventions reported here, combined with sufficient surgeon experience and properly designed implants, afford patients with mild developmental dysplasia a more active lifestyle with favorable implant survival.

Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) involves the replacement of a damaged hip joint with an artificial hip prosthesis. Resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) involves replacement of the joint surface of the femoral head with a metal surface covering.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of different types of THR and RS for the treatment of pain and disability in people with end-stage arthritis of the hip, in particular to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) different types of primary THR and RS for people in whom both procedures are suitable and (2) different types of primary THR for people who are not suitable for hip RS.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio Database were searched in December 2012, with searches limited to publications from 2008 and sample sizes of ≥ 100 participants. Reference lists and websites of manufacturers and professional organisations were also screened.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of THR and RS for people with end-stage arthritis of the hip. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were data extracted and risk of bias and methodological quality were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. A Markov multistate model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by sex and controlled for age were carried out to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 2469 records were screened of which 37 were included, representing 16 RCTs and eight systematic reviews. The mean post-THR Harris Hip Score measured at different follow-up times (from 6 months to 10 years) did not differ between THR groups, including between cross-linked polyethylene and traditional polyethylene cup liners (pooled mean difference 2.29, 95% confidence interval -0.88 to 5.45). Five systematic reviews reported evidence on different types of THR (cemented vs. cementless cup fixation and implant articulation materials) but these reviews were inconclusive. Eleven cost-effectiveness studies were included; four provided relevant cost and utility data for the model. Thirty registry studies were included, with no studies reporting better implant survival for RS than for all types of THR. For all analyses, mean costs for RS were higher than those for THR and mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were lower. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RS was dominated by THR, that is, THR was cheaper and more effective than RS (for a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost of RS was £11,284 and the incremental QALYs were -0.0879). For all age and sex groups RS remained clearly dominated by THR. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that, for all patients, THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. There were age and sex differences in the populations with different types of THR and variations in revision rates (from 1.6% to 3.5% at 9 years). For the base-case analysis, for all age and sex groups and a lifetime horizon, mean costs for category E (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) were slightly lower and mean QALYs for category E were slightly higher than those for all other THR categories in both deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Hence, category E dominated the other four categories. Sensitivity analysis using an age- and sex-adjusted log-normal model demonstrated that, over a lifetime horizon and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, categories A and E were equally likely (50%) to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

A large proportion of the included studies were inconclusive because of poor reporting, missing data, inconsistent results and/or great uncertainty in the treatment effect estimates. This warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. The evidence on complications was scarce, which may be because of the absence or rarity of these events or because of under-reporting. The poor reporting meant that it was not possible to explore contextual factors that might have influenced study results and also reduced the applicability of the findings to routine clinical practice in the UK. The scope of the review was limited to evidence published in English in 2008 or later, which could be interpreted as a weakness; however, systematic reviews would provide summary evidence for studies published before 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with THR, revision rates for RS were higher, mean costs for RS were higher and mean QALYs gained were lower; RS was dominated by THR. Similar results were obtained in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses and for all age and sex groups THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. Revision rates for all types of THR were low. Category A THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-metal articulation) was more cost-effective for older age groups. However, across all age-sex groups combined, the mean cost for category E THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) was slightly lower and the mean QALYs gained were slightly higher. Category E therefore dominated the other four categories. Certain types of THR appeared to confer some benefit, including larger femoral head sizes, use of a cemented cup, use of a cross-linked polyethylene cup liner and a ceramic-on-ceramic as opposed to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Further RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003924.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).

RESULTS

The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Similar range of motion and function after resurfacing large-head or standard total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Large-size hip articulations may improve range of motion (ROM) and function compared to a 28-mm THA, and the low risk of dislocation allows the patients more activity postoperatively. On the other hand, the greater extent of surgery for resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) could impair rehabilitation. We investigated the effect of head size and surgical procedure on postoperative rehabilitation in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Methods We followed randomized groups of RHAs, large-head THAs and standard THAs at 2 months, 6 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively, recording clinical rehabilitation parameters.

RESULTS

Large articulations increased the mean total range of motion by 13° during the first 6 postoperative months. The increase was not statistically significant and was transient. The 2-year total ROM (SD) for RHA, standard THA, and large-head THA was 221° (35), 232° (36), and 225° (30) respectively, but the differences were not statistically significant. The 3 groups were similar regarding Harris hip score, UCLA activity score, step rate, and sick leave.

INTERPRETATION

Head size had no influence on range of motion. The lack of restriction allowed for large articulations did not improve the clinical and patient-perceived outcomes. The more extensive surgical procedure of RHA did not impair the rehabilitation. This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under # NCT01113762.

The removal of acetabular bone in hip resurfacing and cementless total hip replacement

The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of acetabular bone removed during hip resurfacing (HR) and cementless total hip replacement (THR), after controlling for the diameter of the patient’s native femoral head. Based on a power analysis, 64 consecutive patients (68 hips) undergoing HR or THR were prospectively enrolled in the study. The following data were recorded intra-operatively: the diameter of the native femoral head, the largest reamer used, the final size of the acetabular component, the size of the prosthetic femoral head and whether a decision was made to increase the size of the acetabular component in order to accommodate a larger prosthetic femoral head. Results were compared using two-sided, independent samples Student’s t-tests. A statistically significant difference was seen in the mean ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.05 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p <  0.001) and largest acetabular reamer used to the diameter of the native femoral head (HR: 1.03 (sd 0.04) versus THR: 1.09 (sd 0.05); p < 0.001). The ratios varied minimally when the groups were subdivided by gender, age and obesity. The decision to increase the size of the acetabular component to accommodate a larger femoral head occurred more often in the THR group (27% versus 9%). Despite the emphasis on avoiding damage to the femoral neck during HR, the ratio of the size of the acetabular component to the diameter of the native femoral head was larger in cementless THR than in HR.

Metal-on-Metal Bearing: Is This the End of the Line? We Do Not Think So

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have recommended the discontinuation of metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of adverse effects reported with large-diameter MoM THA. This is despite favorable long-term results observed with 28 and 32 mm MoM bearings.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this study was to assess the value of calls for an end to MoM bearings as THA components. Specifically, we wish to address the risks associated with MoM bearings including adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk.

METHODS

The study evaluates the arguments in the literature reporting on MoM (adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk) and the experience of the current authors who re-introduced these bearings in 1995. They are balanced by a benefit-risk review of the literature and the authors' experience with MoM use.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions to metallic debris as well as metal ion release are predictable and can be prevented by adequate design (arc of coverage, clearance), metallurgy (forged instead of cast alloy, high-carbide content), and appropriate component orientation. There is no scientific evidence that carcinogenicity is increased in subjects with MoM hip prostheses. MoM articulations appear to be attractive allowing safe hip resurfacing, decreasing the risk of THA revision in active patients, and providing secure THA fixation with cement in cages in severely deformed hips. MoM bearings in women of child-bearing age are controversial, but long-term data on metallic devices in adolescents undergoing spinal surgery seem reassuring.

DISCUSSION

Adequate selection of MoM articulations ensures their safe use. These articulations are sensitive to orientation. Fifteen years of safe experience with 28- and 32-mm bearings of forged alloy and high-carbide content is the main reason for retaining them in primary and revision THA.

A systematic review of modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients

This systematic review compared 2 treatments for hip disease in active young patients: modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing and standard total hip arthroplasty. We conducted a literature search to identify relevant randomized and clinical controlled trials and included 968 patients from 4 trials in our analysis. Our results indicated increased rates of revision, femoral neck fractures, and component loosening among patients who received modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. No significant differences in the rates of mortality, dislocation, or deep hip joint infection were found between treatment groups. Hip function scores were similar between the 2 groups, but the resurfacing group showed higher activity levels. These results have provided insufficient evidence to determine whether modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing offers clinical advantages over standard total hip arthroplasty.

The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Hip resurfacing (HRS) procedures have gained increasing popularity for younger, higher-demand patients with degenerative hip pathologies. However, with concerns regarding revision rates and possible adverse metal hypersensitivity reactions with metal-on-metal articulations, some authors have questioned the hypothesized superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this meta-analysis, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE) and unpublished or gray literature research databases up to January 2010. Clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complications of HRS were compared to those of THA using risk ratio, mean difference, and standardized mean difference statistics. Studies were critically appraised using the CASP appraisal tool.

RESULTS

46 studies were identified from 1,124 citations. These included 3,799 HRSs and 3,282 THAs. On meta-analysis, functional outcomes for subjects following HRS were better than or the same as for subjects with a THA, but there were statistically significantly greater incidences of heterotopic ossification, aseptic loosening, and revision surgery with HRS compared to THA. The evidence base showed a number of methodological inadequacies such as the limited use of power calculations and poor or absent blinding of both patients and assessors, possibly giving rise to assessor bias.

INTERPRETATION

On the basis of the current evidence base, HRS may have better functional outcomes than THA, but the increased risks of heterotopic ossification, aseptic loosening, and revision surgery following HRS indicate that THA is superior in terms of implant survival.

A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3-6 years follow-up

Two hundred and nine hips were randomised to receive either a 28 mm total hip athroplasty (THA, 100 hips) or hybrid hip resurfacing (HR, 109 hips). At 1 and 2 years post-operatively, patients with HR achieved statistically significantly better WOMAC functional scores. However, differences in scores were of slight clinical relevance with a difference of 2.2/100 and 3.3/100, at 1 and 2 years respectively (p=0.007). After an average follow-up of 56 months (range 36-72) there were similar re-operation rates 7/100 THA and 6/109 HR (p=0.655) and revision rates 2/100 THA and 4/109 HR (p=0.470). However, the types of complications were different. Higher early aseptic loosening rate was found in HR and long-term survival analysis of both patient cohorts is necessary to determine whether the potential bone preservation advantage offers by HR will overcome its earlier higher failure rate.

Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing?

The optimal implant option for hip arthroplasty in the young, active patient remains controversial. There has been renewed interest for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing due to improved design and manufacturing of implants, better materials, enhanced implant fixation, theoretical advantages over conventional total hip arthroplasty, and recent Food and Drug Administration approval of two devices. Recent studies indicate satisfactory short- and midterm clinical results (1- to 10-year followup) with low complication rates, but there is a learning curve associated with this procedure, a more extensive surgical approach is necessary, and long-term results have yet to be determined. Proper patient selection may help avoid complications and improve patient outcomes. Patient selection criteria in the literature appear based predominantly on theoretical considerations without any consensus on stratifying patient risk. The most commonly reported complications encountered with hip resurfacing include femoral neck fracture, acetabular component loosening, metal hypersensitivity, dislocation, and nerve injury. At the time of clinical evaluation, patient age; gender; diagnosis; bone density, quality, and morphology; activity level; leg lengths; renal function; and metal hypersensitivity are important factors when considering a patient for hip resurfacing. Based on our review, we believe the best candidates for hip resurfacing are men under age 65 with osteoarthritis and relatively normal bony morphology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: could we achieve better function?

OBJECTIVE

To report functional outcomes after metal-on-metal (MOM) hip resurfacing.

DESIGN

A cohort of 126 MOM hip resurfacing operations were reviewed 1 year after surgery.

SETTING

Hospital trust specializing in orthopedic surgery.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-seven right and 59 left hips were reviewed in patients (N=120; 71 men, 49 women; mean age, 56+/-9y; range, 24-76y).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Administered once at follow-up. Function was measured using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and UCLA Activity Score. Complications, pain, range of motion, Trendelenburg test, strength, walking, single-leg stand, stair climbing, and 10-m walk time were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall examination was satisfactory with few complications. High functional levels were reported. The median OHS was 15 and median UCLA Activity Score 7 (active). For 25%, outcome was poor with persistent pain, reduced hip flexion (mean, 94.46 degrees +/-12.7 degrees ), decreased strength (P<.001), restricted walking, and functional limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Information about outcomes is important for patients undergoing surgery. Hip resurfacing remains an emergent technology, with further follow-up and investigation warranted. One explanation for suboptimal recovery may be current rehabilitation, originally developed after total hip arthroplasty. Rehabilitation tailored to hip resurfacing, paced for this active population and progressed to higher demand activities, may improve outcomes.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty

The main advantage of hip resurfacing is bone conservation for patients likely to outlive a primary conventional hip replacement. Previous attempts at hip resurfacing failed predominantly because of the consequences of a high amount of wear of thin polyethylene acetabular components and poor femoral component fixation. With correct patient selection, surgeon education, and operative technique, survivorship at five years is comparable with that of traditional hip replacements. Hip resurfacing has its own unique set of complications, including a fractured neck of the femur. It is necessary to understand the risk factors prior to performing the procedure.

In-vitro method for assessing femoral implant-bone micromotions in resurfacing hip implants under different loading conditions

Although prosthesis-bone micromotion is known to influence the stability of total hip replacement, no protocol exists to investigate resurfacing hip implants. An in-vitro protocol was developed to measure prosthesis-bone micromotions of resurfaced femurs. In order to assess the effect of all loading directions, the protocol included a variety of in-vitro loading scenarios covering the range of directions spanned by the hip resultant force in the most typical motor tasks. Gap-opening and shear-slippage micromotions were measured in the locations where they reach the maximum value. The applicability of the protocol was assessed on two commercial designs and different head sizes. Intra-specimen repeatability and inter-specimen reproducibility were excellent (comparable with the best protocols for cemented hip stems). Results showed that the protocol is accurate enough to detect prosthesis-bone micromotions of the order of a few microns. Statistically significant differences were observed in relation to the direction of the applied force. Using the whole range of hip loads enabled detection of maximum micromotions for any design (the peak value could be different for different loading directions). Application of the protocol during a test to failure indicated that the system could track micromotion up to the last instant prior to failure. The protocol proposed is thus completely validated and can be applied for preliminary screening of new epiphyseal designs.

Hip resurfacing: why does it fail? Early results and critical analysis of our first 60 cases

Resurfacing replacement represents the most conservative solution available for total arthroplasty of the hip. However, despite the excellent results reported by highly experienced surgeons, a small but not insignificant body of literature has been published on the more controversial aspects of this approach, mainly those related to the biological and mechanical vulnerability of the retained epiphysis. We report here our evaluation of most of the variables inherent to this procedure (surgical exposure, implant design, technical steps). Based on our results, we conclude that the short-term outcome is strongly related to the surgical approach and the relationship between implant design and cementing technique. Even if posterior approaches are currently widely accepted for resurfacing replacement, the ability to preserve the medial circumflex artery has been questioned, and an alternative exposure has been proposed with good results (antero-lateral, lateral and digastric trochanteric osteotomy). Moreover, a minimally invasive posterior approach could increase the risks of vascular damage. Alternatively, inner implant geometry could affect the distribution of cement over the epiphysis when other variables (direct or indirect cementing technique, viscosity) are not properly selected.

A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement

We have undertaken a prospective, randomised study to compare conservation of acetabular bone after total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. We randomly assigned 210 hips to one of the two treatment groups. Uncemented, press-fit acetabular components were used for both.

No significant difference was found in the mean diameter of acetabular implant inserted in the groups (54.74 mm for total hip replacement and 54.90 mm for resurfacing arthroplasty). In seven resurfacing procedures (6.8%), the surgeon used a larger size of component in order to match the corresponding diameter of the femoral component.

With resurfacing arthroplasty, conservation of bone is clearly advantageous on the femoral side. Our study has shown that, with a specific design of acetabular implant and by following a careful surgical technique, removal of bone on the acetabular side is comparable with that of total hip replacement.

Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty

We have compared the biomechanical nature of the reconstruction of the hip in conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) and surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) in a randomised study involving 120 patients undergoing unilateral primary hip replacement. The contralateral hip was used as a control. Post-operatively, the femoral offset was significantly increased with THA (mean 5.1 mm; -2.8 to 11.6) and decreased with SRA (mean -3.3 mm; -8.9 to 8.2). Femoral offset was restored within sd 4 mm in 14 (25%) of those with THA and in 28 (57%) of the patients receiving SRA (p < 0.001). In the THA group, the leg was lengthened by a mean of 2.6 mm (-6.04 to +12.9), whereas it was shortened by a mean of 1.9 mm (-7.1 to +2.05) in the SRA group, compared with the contralateral side. Leg-length inequality was restored within sd 4 mm in 42 (86%) of the SRA and 33 (60%) of the THA patients. The radiological parameters of acetabular reconstruction were similar in both groups. Restoration of the normal proximal femoral anatomy was more precise with SRA. The enhanced stability afforded by the use of a large-diameter femoral head avoided over-lengthening of the limb or increased offset to improve soft-tissue tension as occurs sometimes in THA. In a subgroup of patients with significant pre-operative deformity, restoration of the normal hip anatomy with lower pre-operative femoral offset or significant shortening of the leg was still possible with SRA.

The optimal metal-metal arthroplasty is still a total hip arthroplasty: in the affirmative

Metal-metal hip resurfacing offers the advantage of conservation of femoral bone stock. In addition, the implant may offer enhanced resistance to dislocation in comparison with conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, early and intermediate results of the procedure do not exceed those of conventional THA. The learning curve is steep for the procedure, and there are biomechanical and anatomic limitations to resurfacing that limit the applicability of the procedure. Although there will undoubtedly be a place for hip resurfacing in the armamentarium of the reconstructive hip resurfacing, it cannot be argued at this time that the optimal metal-metal hip arthroplasty is a hip resurfacing. Conventional metal-metal THA remains the "gold standard" at this time.

A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old

The purpose of this prospective randomised study is to compare the early clinical results of the metal-on-metal hip resurfacing to metal-on-metal THA. Two hundred and ten hips were randomised between August 2003 and January 2006 (191 subjects). One hundred and two hips were implanted with an uncemented titanium tapered stem, and an uncemented titanium acetabular component and 28 mm metal-on-metal bearing (THA group) and 103 hips received a hybrid metal-on-metal surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA group). No significant difference was found with the WOMAC or Merle dAubign-Postel scales. However, a significantly higher activity level was found in the SRA group (UCLA score 6.3 versus 7.1, p= 0.037) and a greater percentage of the SRA patients returned to heavy or moderate activities at one - year postoperatively (72% versus 39%, p=0.007). No patient in either group presented with thigh pain one year after surgery. Both techniques present similar complication rates (0.15). This study supports the theory of better functional recovery in the short-term favouring the SRA when compared to THA. The clear benefit of surface replacement arthroplasty over THA is proximal femoral bone preservation. However, the long term survivorship of the SRA will determine the real value of the theoretical advantage.