Revisions of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: lessons learned and improved outcome

Updating Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head

Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), a condition characterized by the presence of a necrotic bone lesion in the femoral head, is caused by a disruption in the blood supply. Its occurrence is more common in young and middle-aged adults and it is the main reason for performance of total hip arthroplasty in this age group. Its incidence is increasing along with increased use of glucocorticoids for management of adjuvant therapy for treatment of leukemia as well as organ transplantation and other myelogenous diseases. Current information on etiology and pathogenesis, as well as natural history, stage system, and treatments is provided in this review. A description of the Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) criteria for classification of glucocorticoids- and alcohol-associated ONFH, 2019 ARCO staging system, and 2021 ARCO classification using computed tomography for the early stages of ONFH is also provided.

Femoral defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a therapy-oriented classification

INTRODUCTION

The complex field of femoral defects in revision hip arthroplasty displays a lack of standardized, intuitive pre- and intraoperative assessment. To address this issue, the femoral defect classification (FDC) is introduced to offer a reliable, reproducible and an intuitive classification system with a clear therapeutic guideline.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The FDC is based on the integrity of the main femoral segments which determine function and structural support. It focuses on the femoral neck, the metaphysis consisting of the greater and lesser trochanter, and the femoral diaphysis. The four main categories determine the location of the defect while subcategories a, b and c are being used to classify the extent of damage in each location. In total, 218 preoperative radiographs were retrospectively graded according to FDC and compared to intraoperatively encountered bone defects. To account for inter-rater and intra-rater agreement, 5 different observers evaluated 80 randomized cases at different points in time.

RESULTS

A Cohens kappa of 0.832 ± 0.028 could be evaluated, accounting for excellent agreement between preoperative radiographs and intraoperative findings. To account for inter-rater reliability, 80 patients have been evaluated by 5 different observers. Testing for inter-rater reliability, a Fleiss Kappa of 0.688 could be evaluated falling into the good agreement range. When testing for intra-rater reliability, Cohens Kappa of each of the 5 raters has been analyzed and the mean was evaluated at 0.856 accounting for excellent agreement.

CONCLUSION

The FDC is a reliable and reproducible classification system. It combines intuitive use and structured design and allows for consistent preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance. A therapeutic algorithm has been created according to current literature and expert opinion. Due to the combination of the FDC with the recently introduced Acetabular Defect Classification (ADC) a structured approach to the entire field of hip revision arthroplasty is now available.

Lymphocyte transformation test reveals low prevalence of true metal hypersensitivity among pre-operative total knee arthroplasty patients

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of metal hypersensitivity, and identify pre-operative factors which could predict susceptibility to hypersensitivity reactions among patients scheduled for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The present study used a testing method consistent with the recognised biological response to metals.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional analysis of 220 patients was conducted. All patients received a testing protocol using lymphocyte transformation test to evaluate reactivity to possible contents of orthopaedic implants. Test response is interpreted as stimulation index (SI) values. A comprehensive questionnaire was used to evaluate prior exposure. Patients were categorised according to SI values and the odds ratios (OR) were calculated as comparative effect measure for each predetermined prior exposure factor.

RESULTS

The prevalence of metal sensitivity response was 28% (n = 61) among patients with susceptibility to at least one agent (SI = 2 to 4.9), and 3.2% (n = 7) among patients with true hypersensitivity (SI ≥ 5). The population-weighted prevalence, adjusted for sampling weights of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, was SI ≥ 5 = 4.7% (95% CI 0.4-11.8%) and SI ≥ 2 = 35.2% (95% CI 24.8-48.6%). Stimulation index levels of response to materials were markedly varied with the highest being aluminium. Female sex, smoking history, cutaneous reaction to jewellery, occupational exposure, and dental procedures were among factors shown to increase the odds of having higher reactivity response to tested metals. Nevertheless, patients with well-functioning prior contralateral TKA did not appear at greater risk of having either sensitivity or susceptibility with odds ratio (OR) = 0.2 (95% CI 0.01-3.2), p: NS and OR = 0.6 (95% CI 0.3-1.2), p: NS, respectively. Prior positive patch test was neither predictor of susceptibility to hypersensitivity OR = 1.2 (95% CI 0.6-2.6) p: NS nor predictor of true hypersensitivity OR = 0.7 (95% CI 0.08-6.1), p: NS.

CONCLUSION

Among patients scheduled for primary TKA with no prior clinical features of metal allergy the prevalence of true hypersensitivity to at least one metal is just over 3%. Patients are likely to encounter a material to which they have pre-existing susceptibility to hypersensitivity. With certain prior exposure factors, there was increased susceptibility to metal hypersensitivity reaction evoking an acquired condition.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cross-sectional study.

Hip Resurfacing: A Single Surgeon U.S. Series With Minimum Ten-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to determine implant survivorship, analyze patient-reported outcomes measures and to determine patient satisfaction for patients who underwent metal-on-metal hip resurfacing at a large US academic institution by a single surgeon with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hip resurfacing from September 2006 through November 2009 were included. Patient demographics and variables were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database and patients completed an additional questionnaire with patient-reported outcomes measures.

RESULTS

A total of 350 patients (389 hips) out of 371 (433 hips) with a minimum 10-year follow-up were successfully contacted (94.3% follow-up). Mean age was 53 years, 258 were male (73%). 377 out of 389 hips (96.9%) did not require additional surgery. Gender was significantly related to implant survivorship (males 99.0%, females 90.9%; P < .001). 330 patients (369 hips, 94.8%) were satisfied with their surgery. Males had higher proportion of satisfaction scores (P = .02) and higher modified Harris Hip Score (odds ratio = 2.63 (1.39, 4.98), P = .003). Median modified Harris Hip Score score for non-revised hips was 84.0 [80.0; 86.0] versus those requiring revision, 81.5 [74.0; 83.0], (P = .009).

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 10-year follow-up, hip resurfacing, using an implant with a good track record, demonstrates 99.0% survivorship in male patients with an average age of 52 years. We believe that the continued use of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty in this population is justified by both positive patient reported outcomes and survivorship.

Poor Patient Follow-up After Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Routine follow-up approximately every 2 to 5 years after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common practice. However, although patients are informed of the importance of follow-up, our mean follow-up rate for patients after standard non-metal-on-metal (MOM) THA is only 19%. The US Food and Drug Administration has released several statements on the importance of follow-up every 2 years after MOM THA. With the potential risks of MOM THA apparently widely known, we report on our ability to obtain timely follow-up at 2 separate centers. Two separate centers performed 570 MOM THA procedures between 2002 and 2010. An attempt was made to reach every patient by either telephone or letter to obtain ion levels, radiographs, and examinations. Repeat telephone calls and/or letters to those not reached were made annually. Patients were told of the unique importance of follow-up at each contact. Of the patients, 43% had not been seen within the past 5 years, and only 26% had been seen within the past 2 years. Only 61% had their first measurement of ion levels, and only 30% of patients had a second set of measurement of ion levels. A total of 48 revisions occurred in this group, and 36 patients died. Despite the apparent widespread dissemination of information regarding the potential risks of MOM THA and concerted efforts to contact patients for follow-up, we have been able to achieve a follow-up rate of only 26%. This rate is only marginally better than the mean follow-up for non-MOM THA in our practices. The implications of this poor follow-up are unknown. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):e196-e200.].

How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

BACKGROUND

Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in "at-risk" Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall.

METHODS

All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data.

RESULTS

The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76-£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing MHRA surveillance for "at-risk" BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients.

Surgical management of hip prosthetic failure in metallosis: A case series and literature review

Local and remote complications can be observed in hip prosthesis failures associated with metallosis. Structural changes in the periprosthetic bone and soft tissues may not always be precisely assessed preoperatively due to metal artifacts. The unpredictability of the damage extension, potentially leading to complex and insidious surgeries, requires the availability of alternative surgical plan(s) for the reconstruction of the joint. The aim of the study is to present and analyze, with the literature data support, practical tips for the revision of the prosthetic components, the management of ARMD and of intraoperative complications in the unusual scenario of metallosis.

Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: an Updated Review of ARCO on Pathogenesis, Staging and Treatment

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) usually affects adults younger than 50 years and frequently leads to femoral head collapse and subsequent arthritis of the hip. It is becoming more prevalent along with increasing use of corticosteroids for the adjuvant therapy of leukemia and other myelogenous diseases as well as management of organ transplantation. This review updated knowledge on the pathogenesis, classification criteria, staging system, and treatment of ONFH.

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.

Predictive Factors for Revision and Survivorship Analysis of a Prevalent 36-mm Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacement System: A Large Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, this is the largest single-center cohort of the 36-mm Corail-Pinnacle metal-on-metal total hip replacements system, aiming to determine 10-year survivorship and identify predictors of revision. We further assessed year of implantation given reports of manufacturing variations affecting shells made after 2006 predisposing these components to increasing wear.

METHODS

All Corail-Pinnacle 36-mm metal-on-metal hips implanted in a single center (2005-2012). The effect of patient and implant-related variables, and year of implantation on revision risk was assessed using Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and interrupted time series analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 1212 metal-on-metal total hip replacements were implanted with a 10-year survival rate of 83.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.3-85.5). Mean follow-up duration was 7.3 years with 61% of patients reaching a minimum of 7 years of follow-up. One hundred nineteen patients required revision surgery (9.8%). Univariate analysis identified female gender (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.608, CI = 1.093-2.364, P = .016), age at implantation (HR = 0.982, CI = 0.968-0.997, P = .019), smaller 50-mm to 54-mm cup diameter (HR = 1.527, CI = 1.026-2.274, P = .037), and high-offset stems (HR = 2.573, CI = 1.619-4.089, P < .001) as predictors of revision. Multivariate modeling confirmed female gender and high-offset stems as significant predictors of revision. For components implanted after 2007, the number of revisions showed no statistically significant step increase compared to pre-2007 implantation.

CONCLUSION

We observed a high 10-year failure rate (16.6%) with this implant, mostly due to adverse reaction to metal debris. Female gender and high femoral offset stems were significant predictors for all-cause revision. Year of implantation was not significantly associated with an increasing number of revisions from 2007 onwards, although further studies to validate the impact of manufacturing discrepancies are recommended.

lsolated acetabular revisions of articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants with highly porous titanium cups and Delta bearings

INTRODUCTION

Articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants exhibit higher-than-expected revision rates, blood ion concentrations and soft tissue lesions, making revisions troublesome and potentially unsatisfying. Appropriate techniques and outcomes in ASR XL revisions are rarely documented. The aims of this study were the assessments of pre-revision data, post-revision clinical and radiographic outcomes and ion levels in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions performed using highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations.

METHODS

18 isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions in 16 patients were performed using Ti-Por cups (Adler Ortho, Milan, Italy) and Delta bearings (CeramTec, Plochingen, Germany). Pre-revision demographic, clinical, radiological and implant-related features were assessed. Clinical and radiographic parameters (cup positioning, osseointegration) after revisions were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Ion concentrations in blood and urine were collected in pre-revision setting and 1 year after revision.

RESULTS

4 complications occurred in 3 different revisions (16.7%), 1 dislocation, 2 infections, 1 psoas impingement. No re-revision was performed at 5 years (1 scheduled arthroscopy). Good clinical outcomes were achieved (HHS score: 88.3 ± 9.2). All the cups showed reassuring signs of osseointegration (>3 parameters). Blood ion concentrations significantly decreased: patients with Co blood ion concentration over the threshold (7 μg/l) decreased from 76.5% to 0%. No pre-revision or intraoperative data influenced the revision outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations provided reliable mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions. Ion concentrations significantly decreased. Multicentre prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these preliminary outcomes.

What are the results of revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties?

Aims

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is typically indicated for young and active patients. Due to the longevity of arthroplasty, these patients are likely to undergo revision surgery during their lifetime. There is a paucity of information on the long-term outcome of revision surgeries performed after failed HRA. The aim of our study was to provide survivorship data as well as clinical scores after HRA revisions.

Methods

A total of 42 patients (43 hips) were revised after HRA at our centre to a variety of devices, including four HRA and 39 total hip arthroplasties (THAs). In addition to perioperative complications, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hip scores and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12) quality of life scores were collected at follow-up visits after the primary HRA and after revision surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up time after revision surgery was 8.3 years (0.3 to 19.1). The mean UCLA pain and function scores post-revision were comparable with the best scores achieved by the patients after the index HRA, but UCLA activity scores were lower after revision. SF-12 physical component scores were comparable between timepoints, but the mental component score decreased after revision. Six patients underwent unilateral re-revision surgery at a mean follow-up time of 7.8 years (0.3 to 13.7). Using the time to any re-revision as endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 85.3% at 13 years.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing revision after HRA can expect to achieve function and quality of life similar to their best after their primary surgery, while the risk of re-revision is low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1289–1296.

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.

Revision of a dual-modular stem in patients with adverse tissue reaction

BACKGROUND

Dual-modular femoral components with exchangeable cobalt-chrome neck segments have had higher than expected failure rates due to corrosion and adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). Complications, survival rates and early clinical outcomes of revision surgery for the treatment of corrosion and ALTR as a result of these implants are underreported.

METHODS

We identified 44 cases of revision THA for corrosion and ALTR resulting from the same dual modular stem. All revision procedures were performed using a modular tapered fluted titanium stem, ceramic heads and highly cross-linked polyethylene.

RESULTS

Complications included: dislocation, infection, reoperation, and chronic pain. Mean Harris Hip Score was 84 following revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision surgery for ALTR related to this prosthesis should be aware of the risk of postoperative dislocation and other complications and the potential long-term risk of some chronic pain.

Radiographic evaluation of hip resurfacing: the role of x-rays in the diagnosis of a problematic resurfaced hip

INTRODUCTION

Hip resurfacing (HRA) requires a new standardised radiographic evaluation protocol. Evaluation of acetabular components is similar to total hip arthroplasty (THA) but femoral components require different criteria. This study evaluates the efficacy of a new femoral zonal system for radiographic HRA assessment in identifying clinical problems.

METHODS

A new proximal femoral zonal system divides implant-cement-bone interfaces at head and neck into 7 DeSmet zones. 611 in situ and 100 revised HRA were assessed for component positioning, borderline findings (reactive lines, cortical thickening, cancellous condensation) or sinister findings (lucent lines, bone resorption, osteolysis). Findings were correlated with gender, size, implant survival, clinical scores, metal ions, and adverse soft tissue reactions (ALTR).

RESULTS

Radiological changes were found in 265 hips (37.3%), 154 sinister (21.7%) and 111 borderline (15.6%). 84% of revisions had sinister findings versus 11.4% of in situ HRA (p < 0.001). The mean number of abnormal acetabular and femoral zones was 3.3 in revised compared to 0.6 in situ HRA (p < 0.001). Sinister findings were associated with female gender, lower clinical scores, smaller sizes or ASR design (all: p < 0.001). Metal ions were higher with sinister (p < 0.001) and borderline (p < 0.01) findings compared to normal radiographs. Pathological findings in ⩾4 zones had a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 94.2% (AUC = 0.898) in detecting hips with ALTR (odds ratio = 49).

CONCLUSION

In order to accurately evaluate progressive radiographic changes in HRA, specific zones have been established around the femoral component. There was a high correlation between radiographic findings and outcome measures. 84% of problematic hips and 90.4% of proven ALTR had sinister changes.

Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure

Metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasty systems became popular in the early-2000s due to presumed advantages of improved wear characteristics and superior stability. However, subsequent reports of abnormal soft-tissue reactions to MoM implants and national registry data reporting high failure rates raised concerns. Early outcomes of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) were poor, leading to development of surveillance programs and a trend towards early revision surgery. Patients with MoM arthroplasties require surveillance, comprehensive history and physical examination, imaging with ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and laboratory evaluation including metal ion levels. Operative strategies for revision THA vary from exchange of modular components to extensive debridement and reconstruction with revision components. Surgeons should be aware of the increased risks of dislocation and infection following revision THA for ARMD. However, there is growing evidence that early revision surgery prior to extensive soft tissue destruction results in improved outcomes and decreased re-operation rates. It is estimated that >1 million MoM articulations have been implanted, with a large proportion still in situ. It is imperative to understand the aetiology, presentation, and management strategies for these patients to optimise their clinical outcomes.

Follow-up of Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements at a Large District Hospital and the Implementation of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Guidelines: A Review of 297 Patients

Background

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance for patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements was provided in 2012 and updated in 2017 to assist in the early detection of soft-tissue reactions due to metal wear debris. A large number of MoM hip replacements were undertaken at our hospital trust. A program of recall for all patients with MoM hip replacements was undertaken and MHRA guidelines were implemented. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the revised MHRA guidelines in the detection of early adverse reactions to metal debris and to re-evaluate the indications for metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS-MRI) and revision surgery.

Methods

Identification and recall of all patients with MoM hip replacements from 2001 were conducted by using theatre logs, patient records, clinical coding information, and consultant logbooks. Two senior arthroplasty consultants reviewed X-rays and patient records. Postal questionnaires were forwarded to patients, together with requests for general practitioners to complete cobalt and chromium blood tests. The two consultant-led review of MOM replacements was undertaken with further radiological investigations (X-rays, MARS-MRI) performed according to the 2017 guidance with support of consultant radiologists.

Results

Of 674 identified patients, 297 were available for review: 26 patients did not have MoM implants, 36 were untraceable, 59 refused follow-up, 87 moved out of area, 147 had died, and 22 already had revision. Of 297 patients, 126 were women and 171 were men; age range was 39 to 95 years (mean age, 69 years); 126 had resurfacing and 171 had MoM replacements. Twenty-six patients had elevated metal ions. Thirty-three patients underwent MARS-MRI: MARS-MRI results were positive in 17 and negative in 16. Of 17 patients with positive MARS-MRI, 10 patients were asymptomatic and seven were waiting revision.

Conclusions

Positive MARS-MRI can often occur in the absence of elevated metal ion levels; elevated blood metal ion levels do not mean MARS-MRI will be positive. All patients with MoM replacements were at risk. It is imperative to assess patients regularly for symptoms that may raise clinical suspicion and maintain a low threshold to performing MARS-MRI.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

Surgeons currently have difficulty when managing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). This stems from a lack of evidence, which is emphasized by the variability in the recommendations proposed by different worldwide regulatory authorities for considering MoMHA revision surgery. We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 346 MoMHA revisions for ARMD performed at 2 European centers. Preoperative (metal ions/imaging) and intraoperative (findings, components removed/implanted) factors were used to predict poor outcomes. Poor outcomes were postoperative complications (including re-revision), 90-day mortality, and poor Oxford Hip Score.

RESULTS

Poor outcomes occurred in 38.5%. Shorter time (under 4 years) to revision surgery was the only preoperative predictor of poor outcomes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.12, confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-4.46). Prerevision metal ions and imaging did not influence outcomes. Single-component revisions (vs all-component revisions) increased the risk of poor outcomes (OR = 2.99, CI = 1.50-5.97). Intraoperative modifiable factors reducing the risk of poor outcomes included the posterior approach (OR = 0.22, CI = 0.10-0.49), revision head sizes ≥36 mm (vs <36 mm: OR = 0.37, CI = 0.18-0.77), ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.30, CI = 0.14-0.66), and metal-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs ceramic-on-ceramic = 0.37, CI = 0.17-0.83).

CONCLUSION

No threshold exists for recommending revision in MoMHA patients with ARMD. However postrevision outcomes were surgeon modifiable. Optimal outcomes may be achieved if surgeons use the posterior approach, revise all MoMHA components, and use ≥36 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene or metal-on-polyethylene articulations.

Physical Activity Is Associated With the Level of Chromium but Not With Changes in Pseudotumor Size in Patients With Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) and resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) were previously considered an excellent option for young and physically active patients. However, the relationship between MoM THA/RHA patients' daily physical activity (PA), metal ion measurements of chromium and cobalt, and pseudotumor dynamic is insufficiently explored.

METHODS

One hundred eleven patients with 148 hip articulations, 77 MoM THA/RHA and 71 MoP THA, participated in a prospective cohort study, with 5 cross-sectional analyses during a 1-year follow-up. Baseline follow-up was at mean 7.1 (range: 0.2-21.5) years postoperative. At baseline and every 3 months thereafter, patients' daily PA was monitored during a 2-week period using a triaxial accelerometer, and next metal artifact reducing sequence magnetic resonance imaging scans, metal ion measurements of chromium and cobalt, and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score questionnaire were completed.

RESULTS

We found a statistically significant relationship between daily PA and metal ion measurements of chromium at all follow-ups in MoM THA/RHA patients (P ≤ .03) but not in MoP THA patients (P > .35). Patients' daily PA was not related to changes in pseudotumor size at any follow-up (P > .30). Ten of 26 (38%) pseudotumors in MoM THA/RHA and 8 of 29 (28%) pseudotumors in MoP THA changed classification according to the Anderson grading. No pseudotumors transformed in appearance or changed anatomical location.

CONCLUSION

The daily PA of MoM THA/RHA patients is associated with metal ion measurements of chromium but not with changes in pseudotumor size. This is new and important knowledge, which may be useful for hip surgeons in recommendation and monitoration of the consequences of PA in active patients with MoM THA/RHA.

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris

Background and purpose - The initial outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) were poor. Furthermore, robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision are lacking. This article is the second of 2. The first article considered the various investigative modalities used during MoMHA patient surveillance (Matharu et al. 2018a ). The present article aims to provide a clinical update regarding ARMD revision surgery in MoMHA patients (hip resurfacing and large-diameter MoM total hip arthroplasty), with specific focus on the threshold for performing ARMD revision, the surgical strategy, and the outcomes following revision. Results and interpretation - The outcomes following ARMD revision surgery appear to have improved with time for several reasons, among them the introduction of regular patient surveillance and lowering of the threshold for performing revision. Furthermore, registry data suggest that outcomes following ARMD revision are influenced by modifiable factors (type of revision procedure and bearing surface implanted), meaning surgeons could potentially reduce failure rates. However, additional large multi-center studies are needed to develop robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision surgery, which will guide surgeons' treatment of MoMHA patients. The long-term systemic effects of metal ion exposure in patients with these implants must also be investigated, which will help establish whether there are any systemic reasons to recommend revision of MoMHAs.

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

The unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led to worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However, these recommendations are not evidence-based and are very costly. The rapidly evolving evidence base requires an update regarding the investigation and management of MoMHA patients. This article is the first of 2 (the second article in this series will consider the threshold for performing revision, and the outcomes following ARMD revision surgery: Matharu et al., Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018; in press), and considers the various investigative modalities used during surveillance, with specific focus on blood metal ion sampling and cross-sectional imaging. No single investigation can universally be used during MoMHA patient surveillance. Recent studies have now provided important information on interpreting blood metal ions (effective in identifying patients at low risk of problems), clarifying the roles of cross-sectional imaging (reserve combined ultrasound and MARS-MRI for complex cases), and providing parameters to safely exclude many asymptomatic patients from regular surveillance. This information will be useful when designing future surveillance protocols for MoMHA patients.

Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision).

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD?

METHODS

This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Is the rate of revision of 36 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with Pinnacle acetabular components related to the year of the initial operation? an interrupted time-series analysis using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether the rates of revision for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Pinnacle components varied according to the year of the initial operation, and compare these with the rates of revision for other designs of MoM THA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales included 36 mm MoM THAs with Pinnacle acetabular components which were undertaken between 2003 and 2012 with follow-up for at least five years (n = 10 776) and a control group of other MoM THAs (n = 13 817). The effect of the year of the primary operation on all-cause rates of revision was assessed using Cox regression and interrupted time-series analysis.

RESULTS

For MoM THAs involving Pinnacle components, those undertaken between 2007 and 2012 had higher rates of revision compared with those undertaken between 2004 and 2006 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 2.57; p < 0.001). For THAs undertaken during and after 2007, the number of revisions per 1000 implant-years at risk significantly increased by 5.20 (95% CI 0.52 to 9.89; p = 0.033) compared with those undertaken before this time. In the control group, THAs undertaken between 2007 and 2012 also had higher rates of revision (HR 1.77; 95% CI 1.49 to 2.10; p < 0.001), with revisions per 1000 implant-years for those undertaken during and after 2007 significantly increasing by 6.13 (95% CI 1.42 to 10.83; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The five-year revision rates were significantly increased for all primary MoM THAs undertaken from 2007 onwards. Contrary to recent reports, this finding was not specific to those involving Pinnacle acetabular components and may be explained by increased surveillance and recent lowering of the threshold for revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:33-41.

Pseudotumor in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a comparison study of three grading systems with MRI

OBJECTIVE

Pseudotumors, a well-known complication of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA), are well identified on metal artifact-reducing sequences magnetic resonance imaging (MARS-MRI). Several MRI grading systems are described in the orthopedic literature, but their validity is unknown in large clinical studies. Our study was undertaken to describe the classification of pseudotumors in a preselected cohort divided into high- and low-risk patients, using three pseudotumor grading systems applied on MARS-MRI, and to determine the interobserver reliability of the grading systems.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 377 consecutive patients (240 MRI scans) treated with an M2a-38 and Taperloc stem combination (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA). Patients were divided into a high-risk and a low-risk group based on previous published risk factors. Two observers determined the presence of pseudotumors using three different pseudotumor grading systems for classifying MARS-MRI results.

RESULTS

The prevalence of pseudotumors as determined with MARS-MRI was 59% in our high-risk group, 0% in the low-risk group and 43% in the control group. Serum cobalt values were increased in the high-risk group. The kappa values of the Anderson, Hauptfleisch and Matthies grading system scores were 0.43, 0.44, and 0.49 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk patients are at a high risk for pseudotumor development. No pseudotumor development was found in low-risk patients. Interobserver reliability scored best with the Matthies system, but all three grading systems showed only a moderate agreement.

An evidence-based guide to the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients. However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively. The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267-79.

Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

Aims

To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision.

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling.

Results

Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m² increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings (SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive of re-revision when the missing data were imputed.

Conclusion

The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1020–7.

Short stem total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head in patients 60 years or younger: a 3- to 10-year follow-up study

Background

In young patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), short-stem total hip arthroplasty (THA) could allow a potential advantage in preserving metaphyseal bone-stock, when revision surgery might become necessary. However, only a few studies have evaluated the outcome of short-stem THAs in ONFH. We reviewed the prospectively collected data of a cementless partial neck-retaining short-stem with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in ONFH patients.

Methods

Thirty patients (37 hips) younger than 60 years (mean age at surgery, 51.5 years) underwent THA with the NANOS® stem (Smith and Nephew, Marl, Germany) from January 2006 to December 2012. All patients received a 32-mm or 36 mm ceramic femoral head. Harris hip score, WOMAC and UCLA activity score were recorded. Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for bone-implant fixation and osteolysis. Further analysis correlated clinical findings with implants characteristics and patient demographics at mean 5.6 years’ follow-up (range, 3–10 years).

Results

The clinical and functional results improved significantly (p < 0.001). At latest follow-up, mean HHS, WOMAC, and UCLA activity scores were 90 (range, 71–100), 94 (range, 76–100), and 6.3 (range, 4–10) points, respectively. The diameter of the femoral head did not influence the clinical outcome (p = 0.661). All hips showed bone ingrowth fixation of the acetabular and femoral components. No patients showed osteolysis. No revision for any reason was performed during the study period.

Conclusions

The excellent clinical results and fixation pattern at mean 5.6 years’ follow-up reveal this implant as a reliable option in advanced stage of ONFH either. Further investigations are crucial to determine the long-term durability and to assess whether the association of ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, can be useful to achieve longer survivorship and lower complications rates.

Trial registration

Registry number: ISRCTN 91336248; date of registration: 04/07/2017.

Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

OBJECTIVES

Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression.

RESULTS

Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors.Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405-413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Revision of Metal-on-Metal Total Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Failure of metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) bearings is often accompanied by an aggressive local reaction associated with destruction of bone, muscle, and other soft tissues around the hip. Little is known about whether patient-reported physical and mental function following revision THA in MOM patients is compromised by this soft tissue damage, and whether revision of MOM THA is comparable with revision of hard-on-soft bearings such as metal-on-polyethylene (MOP).

METHODS

We identified 75 first-time MOM THA revisions and compared them with 104 first-time MOP revisions. Using prospective patient-reported measures via the Veterans RAND-12, we compared Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score function at preoperative baseline and postoperative follow-up between revision MOM THA and revision MOP THA.

RESULTS

Physical Component Score did not vary between the groups preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Mental Component Score preoperatively and 1 and 3 months postoperatively were lower in patients in the MOM cohort compared with patients with MOP revisions (baseline: 43.7 vs 51.3, P < .001; 1 month: 44.9 vs 53.3, P < .001; 3 months: 46.0 vs 52.3, P = .016). However, by 1 year, MCS scores were not significantly different between the revision cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Postrevision physical function in revised MOM THA patients does not differ significantly from the outcomes of revised MOP THA. Mental function is markedly lower in MOM patients at baseline and early in the postoperative period, but does not differ from MOP patients at 1 year after revision. This information should be useful to surgeons and physicians facing MOM THA revision.

Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision

BACKGROUND

High short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes?

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7-15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures.

RESULTS

Overall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%-74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%-76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%-85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%-81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2-46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2-7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1-29; p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient and Radiographic Factors Help to Predict Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacings with Evidence of a Pseudotumor

BACKGROUND

The role of radiographs in the follow-up of patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) implants is unclear. We investigated whether a combination of patient and radiographic factors predicted MoMHRs with evidence of a pseudotumor.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center case-control study of 384 MoMHRs. The pseudotumor group of 130 hips all had evidence of a symptomatic pseudotumor on cross-sectional imaging, with the diagnosis confirmed at revision. The nonpseudotumor group of 254 hips (a subgroup of these hips were previously reported on) all had normal findings on cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs taken immediately prior to revision were assessed in the pseudotumor group and were compared with radiographs taken at the time of normal cross-sectional imaging in the nonpseudotumor group. Two blinded independent observers analyzed the radiographs for signs of failure, with excellent interobserver agreement. Logistic regression modeling identified the patient and radiographic predictors of revision for pseudotumor.

RESULTS

Hips with a pseudotumor more commonly had abnormal findings on radiographs compared to hips without a pseudotumor (80.0% compared with 63.4%; p = 0.001). Patient and radiographic factors predictive of revision for pseudotumor in the multivariable model were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85 to 5.35; p < 0.001), high inclination (OR, 1.04 per degree; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.07 per degree; p = 0.006), acetabular osteolysis (OR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.14 to 12.0; p < 0.001), femoral osteolysis (OR, 17.8; 95% CI, 5.09 to 62.2; p < 0.001), and acetabular loosening (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.34 to 8.35; p = 0.009). Factors predictive of not having a pseudotumor were anteversion of ≥5° (5° to <10°: OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.77; p = 0.012; and ≥10°: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004) and heterotopic ossification (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.72; p = 0.015). The final multivariable model was well calibrated (p = 0.589), with good discriminatory ability (area under the curve = 0.801; sensitivity = 74.4%; specificity = 71.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of patient and radiographic factors provided useful information for distinguishing between MoMHRs with and without evidence of a pseudotumor. Surgeons may wish to consider these specific patient and radiographic factors before proceeding with cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs are important when assessing patients with MoMHR implants and should be included in all follow-up protocols.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014

This paper reports the consensus of an international faculty of expert metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing surgeons, with a combined experience of over 40,000 cases, on the current status of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Indications, design and metallurgy issues, release of metal ions and adverse soft tissue reactions to particles, management of problematic cases and revisions, as well as required experience and training are covered. The overall consensus is that MoM hip resurfacing should not be banned and should be viewed separately from MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a large diameter head because of the different design and wear behaviour related to the taper/trunnion connection. The use of hip resurfacing has decreased worldwide but specialist centres continue to advocate hip resurfacing in young and active male patients. Regarding age the general recommendation is to avoid hip resurfacing in men older than 65 and in women older than 55, depending on the patient activity and bone quality. Female gender is considered a relative contraindication. Most surgeons would not implant a MoM hip in women who would still like a child. Regardless of gender, there is a consensus not to perform hip resurfacing in case of a femoral head size smaller than 46 mm and in patients with renal insufficiency or with a known metal allergy. Regarding follow-up of hip resurfacing and detection of adverse local tissue reactions, metal ion measurements, MRI and ultrasound are advocated depending on the local expertise. The consensus is that hip resurfacing should be limited to high volume hip surgeons, who are experienced in hip resurfacing or trained to perform hip resurfacing in a specialist centre.

Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup

Despite the initial promise of metal-on-metal (MoM) implants as the ideal bearing surface for hip replacements and resurfacings, high short term failure rates due to an adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of MoM implants used in the modern era. With over one million patients worldwide having undergone hip operations utilizing a MoM bearing surface, the long term outcomes for such patients remains unknown, and there is much debate as to the most effective management of these patients. Although several regulatory bodies have released guidelines on the management of patients with MoM hips, these recommendations remain open to interpretation, and the most effective management for these patients remains unclear. The aim of this review is to compare the current guidelines for managing patients with MoM hips and also to discuss established ARMD risk factors, evidence regarding the optimum management for patients with MoM hips, and the indications for revision surgery. Furthermore, although specialized laboratory tests and imaging can be used to facilitate clinical decision making, over-reliance on any single tool should be avoided in the decision making process, and surgeons should carefully consider all findings when determining the most appropriate course of action.

Preoperative Risk Factors Associated With Poor Outcomes of Revision Surgery for "Pseudotumors" in Patients With Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision surgery of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adverse tissue reaction (pseudotumor) can be challenging as a consequence of soft tissue and muscle necrosis. The aims of this study were to (1) report the revision outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for failed MoM hip arthroplasty due to symptomatic pseudotumor and (2) identify preoperative risk factors associated with revision outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2013, a total of 102 consecutive large head MoM hip arthroplasties in 97 patients (male: 62, female: 35), who underwent revision surgery were identified from the database of a multidisciplinary referral center.

RESULTS

At minimum follow-up of 2 years (range: 26-52 months), at least one complication had occurred in 14 of 102 revisions (14%). Prerevision radiographic loosening (P = .01), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of solid lesions with abductor deficiency on MRI (P < .001), and intraoperative grading of adverse tissue reactions (P = .05) were correlated with post-revision complications. The reoperation rate of revised MoM THA was 7% (7 of 102 hips). Implant survivorship was 88% at 3 years. Metal ion levels declined in most patients after removal of MoM articulation.

CONCLUSION

Revision outcomes of revision surgery for failed MoM THA due to symptomatic pseudotumor demonstrated 14% complication rate and 7% re-revision rate at 30-month follow-up. Our study identified prerevision radiographic loosening, solid lesions/abductor deficiency on MRI, and high grade intraoperative tissue damage as risk factors associated with poorer revision outcomes. This provides clinically useful information for preoperative planning and perioperative counseling of MoM THA patients undergoing revision surgery.

What is the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients?

PURPOSE

We assessed the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs), and factors associated with future revision.

METHODS

In 2007-2008, we identified 25 MoMHRs (21 patients; mean age 59.9 years; 76% female) with asymptomatic pseudotumours. All patients underwent identical initial assessment (ultrasound, blood metal ions, radiographs, Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) and were considered asymptomatic because they denied experiencing hip symptoms, were satisfied with their MoMHR surgery, and had good or excellent OHSs (≥34). In 2012-2013, repeat assessments were performed in all non-revised patients.

RESULTS

Revision for pseudotumour was performed/recommended in 15 MoMHRs (60%) at a mean 2.7 years (range 0.4-6.4 years) from initial assessment, with 14 developing symptoms before revision. Non-revised MoMHRs (n = 10) underwent repeat ultrasound at a mean 5.1 years (range 4.0-6.5 years) later, with no changes in pseudotumour volume (p = 0.956) or OHS (p = 0.065) between assessments. High blood cobalt (p = 0.0048) and chromium (p = 0.0162), large pseudotumours (p = 0.0458), low OHS (p = 0.0183), and bilateral MoMHRs (p = 0.049) predicted future revision. Patients with blood metal ions above established unilateral/bilateral thresholds and/or initial pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 had an 86.7% sensitivity, 70.0% specificity, 81.2% positive predictive value, and 77.8% negative predictive value for future revision.

CONCLUSIONS

MoMHR patients with initially asymptomatic pseudotumours often become symptomatic and require revision. Patients with high blood metal ions and/or pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 should remain under annual surveillance or be considered for revision (especially in patients also having lower initial OHSs, bilateral MoMHRs, and/or those becoming symptomatic). Less regular surveillance of patients outside these parameters appears acceptable.

Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty with Well Fixed and Positioned Acetabular Component Using a Dual-mobility Head and Review of Literature

Background:

As a consequence of use of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties some patients have precised revision for pain or metal hipersensivity reactions among other causes. We propose to salvage monoblock acetabular component and femoral component using a dual-mobility head and perform a lower morbidity operation in young patients preserving host bone stock in cases with well fixed and positioned components.

Objective:

(1) What clinical problems have been reported in patients with Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties? (2) Could the tribocorrosion potentially cause a fracture of neck femoral component? (3) Can be the dual-mobility head a recourse in metal-on-metal hip revision?

Methods:

Ten patients were revised for pain or/and raised Cobalt/Chromium levels between August 2012 and December 2015. In three cases femoral neck component was fractured and femoral revision was necessary. In four hips, acetabular and femoral components could be maintained. Age, body index mass, ion levels, acetabular position, size of acetabular component and femoral head, approach, blood transfunsion and time of hospitalization were analized.

Results:

At a mean follow-up of 25,6 months (6 to 45) the mean postoperative HHS was 92. It was not statistically significant because several patients were low sintomatic before surgery, but had raised Cobalt/Chromium levels in the blood. All patients had near-normal levels of Cobalt/Chromium during the first 6 months after revision surgery. No relevant complications were reported.

Conclusion:

The use of dual-mobility head can be an acceptable option to revise metal-on-metal arthroplasties correctly oriented with abscence of loosening or infection signs and keeping bone stock in young patients.

Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation

The potential advantages of contemporary MoM THA implants include less volumetric wear with subsequent reduction of polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis and greater component stability with use of large-diameter femoral heads. However, there have been concerns regarding significantly elevated revision rates in MoM THA due to MoM-related complications such as adverse local tissue reaction (pseudotumour) formation. The increased failure rate in MoM hip arthroplasty is associated with the generation of biologically active, nanometer sized metal particles from the MoM bearing surfaces and taper junctions, which result in the development of a localized, adverse periprosthetic soft tissue response. The focus of this article is to provide an update on (1) implant, surgical and patient factors associated with adverse local tissue reactions (pseudotumours) and (2) the clinical systematic evaluation and management of patients with MoM hip arthroplasty based on the currently available evidence. There should be a low threshold to conduct a systematic clinical evaluation of patients with MoM hip arthroplasty as early recognition and diagnosis will allow the initiation of prompt and appropriate treatment. As a symptomatic MoM total hip arthroplasty may have intrinsic and extrinsic causes, patients should be evaluated systematically, utilizing risk stratification algorithms. Although specialized laboratory tests such as metal ion levels and cross sectional imaging modalities such as MARS MRI can be used to facilitate clinical decision making, over-reliance on any single investigative tool in the clinical decision-making process should be avoided. Further research is required to obtain a better understanding of implant and patient risk factors associated with tribocorrosion in MoM total hip arthroplasty.

Predicting high blood metal ion concentrations following hip resurfacing

PURPOSE

To determine whether gender, femoral head size, acetabular inclination, and time since surgery predicted high blood metal ion concentrations following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR).

METHODS

BHR patients with unilateral bearings at one specialist centre with blood cobalt and chromium concentrations measured up to May 2013 were included. This comprised a mixed (at-risk) group including symptomatic patients and asymptomatic individuals with specific clinical and/or radiological findings. Blood sampling was at a mean of 7.5 years (range 1-15.4 years) postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of 319 patients (mean age 49.3 years; 53% male), blood metal ions greater than 7 µg/l were observed in 9% (n = 28). Blood metal ions were significantly higher in females (p&lt;0.001), femoral head sizes ≤48 mm (p&lt;0.01), and cup inclinations &gt;55° (p&lt;0.001). Linear regression demonstrated femoral head size was responsible for the highest proportion of variance in blood metal ions (cobalt p&lt;0.001, R2 = 8%; chromium p&lt;0.001, R2 = 11%). Analysis of femoral head size and inclination together demonstrated 36% of BHRs with head sizes of 38-44 mm and inclination &gt;55° had blood metal ions &gt;7 µg/l. BHR 10-year survival for this at-risk group was 91% (95% confidence intervals 86.0%-95.0%) with 30 hips revised.

CONCLUSIONS

If blood metal ions are used to screen hip resurfacing patients for adverse reactions to metal debris it is recommended those with small femoral head sizes (38-44 mm) and high acetabular inclinations (&gt;55°) are targeted. These findings require validation in other cohorts as they may not be applicable to all hip resurfacing devices given the differences in radial clearance, coverage arc, and metallurgy.

Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: Current status and future prospects

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings were re-popularised in the late 1990s with the introduction of modern hip resurfacing (HR), followed closely by large metal head total hip arthroplasty (THA). A worldwide increase in the use of MoM hip arthroplasty subsequently saw a sharp decline, due to serious complications.MoM was rapidly adopted in the early 2000s until medical device alerts were issued by government regulatory agencies and national and international organisations, leading to post-marketing surveillance and discontinuation of these implants.Guidelines for MoM hip implant follow-up differ considerably between regulatory authorities worldwide; this can in part be attributed to missing or conflicting evidence.The authors consider that the use of large-head MoM THA should be discontinued. MoM HR should be approached with caution and, when considered, should be used only in patients who meet all of the recommended selection criteria, which limits its indications considerably.The phased introduction of new prostheses should be mandatory in future. Close monitoring of outcomes and long-term follow-up is also necessary for the introduction of new prostheses. Cite this article: van Lingen CP, Zagra LM, Ettema HB, Verheyen CC. Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: current status and future prospects. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:345-353. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160014.

Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Hip Resurfacing Revision: A Cohort Study Into the Second Decade After the Operation

BACKGROUND

Most metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs have experienced high short-term failure rates because of pseudotumors. The impact of this complication into the second decade after the procedure is unknown. We investigated (1) the prevalence of, and risk factors for, all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision at up to 15 years following MoMHR and (2) whether risk factors were sex-specific.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study included 1,429 MoMHRs (1216 patients; 40% female) implanted between 1999 and 2009. Patients were contacted in 2010 and 2012 as per national recommendations. Patients with symptoms related to the hip and/or suboptimal Oxford Hip Scores (≤41 of 48 points) underwent cross-sectional imaging and blood metal-ion sampling. Revision diagnoses were established using operative and histopathological findings. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of predictor variables with the time to all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty MoMHRs (12.6%) were revised for all causes, and 111 (7.8% of the series and 61.7 % of all revisions) were revised because of pseudotumor. Survival analysis showed the 15-year cumulative revision rate for all causes to be 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.2% to 23.2%) and the 15-year rate of revision due to pseudotumor to be 14.0% (95% CI = 11.0% to 17.7%). Small femoral head size (hazard ratio [HR] per 2 mm = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and certain implant designs (HR = 1.55 to 3.01; p ≤ 0.029) significantly increased the all-cause revision risk. Female sex (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.44; p = 0.009) and young age (HR per year = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.00; p = 0.020) significantly increased the pseudotumor-related revision risk but not the all-cause revision risk. Risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision were sex-specific. In females, small femoral head size (p = 0.014) increased the all-cause revision risk, and young age was the only predictor of pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.019). In males, implant design was the only predictor of all-cause revision (p ≤ 0.015) and pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and rates of revision for all causes and pseudotumor were high at up to 15 years following MoMHR. Predictors of revision differed between all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions and were sex-specific. These factors must be appropriately weighted when risk-stratifying patients with MoMHRs for surveillance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision of a single type of large metal head metal-on-metal hip prosthesis

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties were introduced because of their purported advantages. Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after MoM hip arthroplasty and often lead to revision. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of revision of large-head MoM total hip arthroplasties after an extensive screening protocol for all MoM articulations with a minimum 2 year follow-up. We identified 50 hips that had undergone large-head MoM total hip arthoplasty and required revision at a mean of 44 months after index operation. Of these, 38 were revised for pseudotumours, 7 for loosening, 2 for infection and 3 for instability. There was bone loss in 44 hips. The majority were revised to a 28 mm metal or ceramic head on a polyethylene-cemented cup. In 12 patients there was a complication. There was a decrease of whole blood cobalt from 20.8 µg/L preoperatively to 1.8 µg/L 1 year after revision. We found 6 residual masses on routine postoperative CT scans. The indication for revision of this cohort is inevitable but the clinical outcome 2 years after revision for pseudotumour is disappointing. Revising a MoM hip arthroplasty to a conventional cemented polyethylene or dual-mobility cup with bone impaction grafting and a 28 mm head can adequately treat the high ion levels and probably the disease of ARMD.

Revision Rate and Patient-Reported Outcome After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Concise Follow-Up of 1064 Cases

We investigated survival and outcomes in 1064 HRA hips operated on between 1998 and 2009. After a mean of 7.8 years, 771 patients (72.4%) completed questionnaires, with a further 160 (15.0%) contacted by phone and 18 (1.7%) had died. There were 54 revisions. Overall implant survival at 10 years was 94.4%. Independent predictors of lower survival were female gender (P=0.015) and cup inclination ≥55° (P<0.001). Woman with cup inclination ≥55° had the highest failure rate with 10-year survival of 69.3%. Vertical cup inclination ≥55° did worse than cups <55° in both men and women. Overall men did better than women, and men with cups <55 degrees did best. Men had significantly better patient-reported outcome scores than woman.

Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: Where Do We Stand Today? A Ten-Year Update

➤ Although multiple theories have been proposed, no one pathophysiologic mechanism has been identified as the etiology for the development of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. However, the basic mechanism involves impaired circulation to a specific area that ultimately becomes necrotic.➤ A variety of nonoperative treatment regimens have been evaluated for the treatment of precollapse disease, with varying success. Prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of these regimens in altering the natural history of the disease.➤ Joint-preserving procedures are indicated in the treatment of precollapse disease, with several studies showing successful outcomes at mid-term and long-term follow-up.➤ Studies of total joint arthroplasty, once femoral head collapse is present, have described excellent outcomes at greater than ten years of follow-up, which is a major advance and has led to a paradigm shift in treating these patients.➤ The results of hemiresurfacing and total resurfacing arthroplasty have been suboptimal, and these procedures have restricted indications in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Follow-Up of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients Is Currently Not Evidence Based or Cost Effective

Over one-million patients worldwide have received metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties with a significant proportion requiring revision surgery in the short-term for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). Worldwide authorities have subsequently issued follow-up guidance for MoM hip patients. This article compares follow-up guidelines for MoM hips published by five worldwide authorities, analyses these protocols in relation to published evidence, and assesses the financial implications of these guidelines. A number of major differences exist between authorities regarding patient follow-up, with vast cost differences between protocols (£84 to £988/patient/year for stemmed MoM hips and £0 to £988/patient/year for hip resurfacing). Current worldwide guidance is neither evidence-based nor financially sustainable with most protocols lacking the sensitivity to detect asymptomatic ARMD lesions.

Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Prostheses Results in Marked Reduction of Blood Cobalt and Chromium Ion Concentrations

BACKGROUND

High revision rates attributable to adverse reactions to metal debris have been reported for total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with metal-on-metal implants and hip resurfacings. The effect of revision on blood metal ion levels is described only in small series, the clinical results of revisions have been contradictory, and concerns regarding component loosening have been presented.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Did revision surgery result in a reduction to normal for whole blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels (2) What changes to the Oxford Hip Score were observed after revision of these hips with metal-on-metal implants? (3) Were there radiologic signs of component loosening observed on 1-year followup radiographs?

METHODS

Between September 2010 and April 2013, 154 patients (166 hips) who had THAs with implantation of the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) system and 44 patients (49 hips) who had hip resurfacings of the ASR™ implant underwent revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris at our institution, after recall of these components in August 2010. General indications for revision of these implants included a symptomatic hip and/or a predominantly solid pseudotumor seen on cross-sectional imaging. Since recall, patients were systematically followed after revision with Oxford Hip Score questionnaires, blood Co and Cr measurements (analyzed from whole blood with dynamic reaction-cell inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry), and plain radiographs at 2 and 12 months after revision surgery, and thereafter at 2-year intervals. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative blood Co and Cr values were available for 93% (185 of 198 patients), Oxford Hip Score for 76% (151 of 198 patients), and plain radiographs for all patients.

RESULTS

Whole-blood levels of Co decreased below the 7 ppb cut-off value in all patients with revision of unilateral THA or resurfacing, however, blood Cr levels remained elevated in four of 90 patients (4%) in the unilateral THA group and four of 34 patients (12%) in the unilateral resurfacing group. All had ultrahigh (> 40 ppb) preoperative Cr levels. Cr levels remained elevated in six of the patients at the 3-year followup. The median Oxford Hip Score improved from preoperative to 1-year postoperative in the unilateral THA group (38 [4-48] to 40 [9-48], p = 0.049) and in the unilateral hip resurfacing group (37.5 [9-48] to 44 [13-48], p = 0.011). No improvement was seen in patients who had bilateral THAs (37 [14-48] to 41 [9-48], p = 0.196). Only minor radiographic abnormalities were seen, with no suspicion of component loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal-on-metal THAs and resurfacings have raised concerns and an emerging rate of revisions has been seen for many different metal-on-metal hip prostheses worldwide. Revision surgery seems to be effective for removal of the systemic metal ion burden, even though blood Cr remained elevated in a few patients for more than 3 years after removal of the metal-on-metal implant. In patients with bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacements the remaining metal-on-metal implant still supplies the body with Co and Cr ions after a unilateral revision, and therefore followup should be continued. Adverse reactions to metal debris do not seem to compromise implant ingrowth after revision surgery. However, as some of our patients still had a poor functional outcome at 12 months after revision surgery, additional research is warranted to determine the optimal time for patients to undergo revision surgery for suspected adverse reactions to metal debris.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes

PURPOSE

This systematic review assessed evidence on outcomes following revision of MoM hip resurfacings (HRs) and total hip replacements (THRs) for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched between January 2009 and July 2013 to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes following revision of MoM HRs and THRs for ARMD. Only studies reporting cohorts with more than 10 metal-on-metal (MoM) hips revised for ARMD were included. Outcomes of interest following ARMD revision were: (1) complication rates; (2) re-revision rates; (3) surgical intervention other than re-revision; (4) functional outcome.

RESULTS

Of 148 unique studies identified, six studies were eligible for inclusion containing 216 MoM hips (197 HRs and 19 THRs) revised for ARMD. Mean follow-up time from ARMD revision ranged between 21-61 months. Complication rates were 4%-50% for HR and 68% for THR. Re-revision rates were 3%-38% for HR and 21% for THR. Dislocation (n = 14), ARMD recurrence (n = 11), and acetabular loosening (n = 9) were the three commonest complications and indications for re-revision. All six studies reported between one and three cases of ARMD recurrence during follow-up. One study specifically reported on performing procedures other than re-revision with 26% requiring closed reductions for dislocated THRs. Functional outcomes following ARMD revision were good or satisfactory in all but two studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists regarding outcomes following revision of MoM hips for ARMD, especially for THRs. This should be addressed in future studies and may be important when counselling asymptomatic individuals in whom revision is considered for raised blood metal ions.