Survivorship of Conserve® Plus monoblock metal-on-metal hip resurfacing sockets: radiographic midterm results of 580 patients

Sensitivity and specificity of post-operative interference gap assessment on plain radiographs after cementless primary THA

INTRODUCTION

Implant performance of cementless THA is often evaluated by radiolucency on plain radiographs, often classified as interference gaps on direct post-operative radiographs. However, the diagnostic performance is unknown. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiographic assessment of post-operative gaps after primary THA by comparing it with CT confirmed gaps, and secondary to define optimal cut-off criteria for assessing gaps on plain radiographs compared with CT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients (N = 40) with a primary cementless THA performed between July 2015 and March 2016 were enrolled in the study. Radiolucency was assessed on post-operative AP pelvic digital radiographs by two observers independently. Maximum width and percentage of coverage per zone were reported. Gap volume was measured by manual segmentation on CT images.

RESULTS

When defining a gap as a radiolucency extending through >50% of a zone, the interrater agreement Kappa was 0.241. Sensitivity was 65.8% for observer 1 (Kappa = 0.432), and 86.8% for observer 2 (Kappa = 0.383). When defining a gap as a radiolucency with a width >1 mm, the interrater agreement Kappa was 0.302. Sensitivity was 55.3% and 50% for observer 1 and observer 2, respectively. The ROC-curve resulted in an optimal threshold of 0.65 mm (AUROC = 0.888) and 0.31 mm (AUROC = 0.961) for the two observers.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of observers detecting interference gaps on radiographs showed low sensitivity. Further on, the inter-rater agreement is too low to do a general recommendation about thresholds for defining gaps. Evaluating progression of radiolucency on radiographs should be performed in the light of these findings.

Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Background and purpose - In a previous registry report, short-term implant survival of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Finland was found to be comparable to that of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Since then, it has become evident that adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMDs) may also be associated with HRA, not only with large-diameter head metal-on-metal THA. The aim of the study was to assess medium- to long-term survivorship of HRA based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR). Patients and methods - 5,068 HRAs performed during the period 2001-2013 in Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, femoral head size, and hospital volume was used to analyze implant survival of HRA devices with revision for any reason as endpoint. The reference group consisted of 6,485 uncemented Vision/Bimetric and ABG II THAs performed in Finland over the same time period. Results - The 8-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, was 93% (CI: 92-94) for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), 86% (CI: 78-94) for Corin, 91% (CI: 89-94) for ReCap, 92% (CI: 89-96) for Durom, and was 72% (CI: 69-76) for the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR). The 10-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for reference THAs was 92% (CI: 91-92) and for all HRAs it was 86% (CI: 84-87%). Female HRA patients had about twice the revision risk of male patients. ASR had an inferior outcome: the revision risk was 4-fold higher than for BHR, the reference implant. Interpretation - The 10-year implant survival of HRAs is 86% in Finland. According to new recommendations from NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), an HRA/THA should have a revision rate of 5% or less at 10 years. None of the HRAs studied achieved this goal.

High Re-Operation Rates Using Conserve Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Articulations

Introduction:

Metal-on-metal hip articulations have been intensely debated after reports of adverse reactions and high failure rates. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the implant of a metal-on.metal total hip articulation (MOM THA) from a single manufacture in a two-center study.

Materials and Methods:

108 CONSERVE^® MOM THA were implanted in 92 patients between November 2005 and December 2010. Patients had at time of retrospective evaluation their journals reviewed for re-operations and adverse reactions.

Results:

20 hips were re-operated (18.4%) at a mean follow up of 53 months. 4 pseudotumors were diagnosed at time of follow up but no substantiated link was made between adverse reactions and re-operations.

Conclusion:

The high re-operation rates found in this study raised concern about the usage of the MOM THA and subsequently lead to the termination of implantation of this MOM THA at the two orthopaedic departments.

The Canadian Arthroplasty Society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to determine whether the five-year results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Canada justified the continued use of HRA; and second, to identify whether greater refinement of patient selection was warranted.

This was a retrospective cohort study that involved a review of 2773 HRAs performed between January 2001 and December 2008 at 11 Canadian centres. Cox’s proportional hazards models were used to analyse the predictors of failure of HRA. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to predict the cumulative survival rate at five years. The factors analysed included age, gender, body mass index, pre-operative hip pathology, surgeon’s experience, surgical approach, implant sizes and implant types. The most common modes of failure were also analysed.

The 2773 HRAs were undertaken in 2450 patients: 2127 in men and 646 in women. The mean age at operation was 50.5 years (sd 8.72; 18 to 82) and mean follow-up was 3.4 years (sd 2.1; 2.0 to 10.1). At the last follow-up a total of 101 HRAs (3.6%) required revision. Using revision for all causes of failure as the endpoint, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a cumulative survival of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1 to 96.9) at five years. With regard to gender, the five-year overall survival was 97.4% in men (95% CI 97.1 to 97.7) and 93.6% in women (95% CI 92.6 to 94.6). Female gender, smaller femoral components, specific implant types and a diagnosis of childhood hip problems were associated with higher rates of failure. The most common cause of failure was fracture of the femoral neck, followed by loosening of the femoral component.

The failure rates of HRA at five years justify the ongoing use of this technique in men. Female gender is an independent predictor of failure, and a higher failure rate at five years in women leads the authors to recommend this technique only in exceptional circumstances for women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1044–50.

Should we worry about periacetabular interference gaps in hip resurfacing?

BACKGROUND

Press-fit acetabular component seating in hip resurfacing can be challenging as a strong interference fit is required. It has not been established whether reducing the acetabular underream minimizes incomplete component seating or leads to increased acetabular loosening.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We examined (1) the incidence and natural history of postoperative interference gaps in hip resurfacing and (2) whether reduction of the acetabular underream from 2 mm to 1 mm reduces the incidence of periacetabular interference gaps.

METHODS

Of 327 Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacings (Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN, USA) performed by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2010, we evaluated 306 hips with a minimum 1-year radiographic followup. Postoperative periacetabular interference gaps were monitored for radiographic gap resolution at latest followup. The frequency of incomplete component seating was compared between acetabula prepared with 1- and 2-mm underream techniques. Minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 2.7 years; range, 1-6 years).

RESULTS

Fifty-one percent of the postoperative radiographs demonstrated the presence of a periacetabular interference gap. At latest followup, 96% of these gaps were no longer visible. We observed a reduction in the number of interference gaps identified when acetabular preparation changed from a 2-mm underream (63%) to a 1-mm underream (39%). There were no revisions due to acetabular failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Periacetabular interference gaps were common in this series but not associated with acetabular component failure. The use of a 1-mm underream is sufficient for adequate short-term press-fit fixation of the acetabular component in Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacing arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship

BACKGROUND

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty designs have been used for over a decade. Risk factors for short-term failure include small component size, large femoral head defects, low body mass index, older age, high level of sporting activity, and component design, and it is established there is a surgeon learning curve. Owing to failures with early surgical techniques, we developed a second-generation technique to address those failures. However, it is unclear whether the techniques affected the long-term risk factors.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We (1) determined survivorship for hips implanted with the second-generation cementing technique; (2) identified the risk factors for failure in these patients; and (3) determined the effect of the dominant risk factors on the observed modes of failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the first 200 hips (178 patients) implanted using our second-generation surgical technique, which consisted of improvements in cleaning and drying the femoral head before and during cement application. There were 129 men and 49 women. Component orientation and contact patch to rim distance were measured. We recorded the following modes of failure: femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, acetabular component loosening, wear, dislocation, and sepsis. The minimum followup was 25 months (mean, 106.5 months; range, 25-138 months).

RESULTS

Twelve hips were revised. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 98.0% at 5 years and 94.3% at 10 years. The only variable associated with revision was acetabular component position. Contact patch to rim distance was lower in hips that dislocated, were revised for wear, or were revised for acetabular loosening. The dominant modes of failure were related to component wear or acetabular component loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Acetabular component orientation, a factor within the surgeon's control, determines the long-term success of our current hip resurfacing techniques. Current techniques have changed the modes of failure from aseptic femoral failure to wear or loosening of the acetabular component.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.

Hip resurfacing with the Biomet Hybrid ReCap-Magnum system: 7-year results

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical outcome of a large series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) using the hybrid Biomet ReCap-Magnum system. This is a single-designer surgeon series with an average of 5 ± 1 years. Seven hundred forty consecutive hybrid HRAs were performed in 653 patients. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with any revision as an end point was 96.4% at 7 years. Twenty-five (3.4%) cases were revised: 8 due to acetabular component loosening, 6 due to femoral neck facture, 4 due to failure of femoral component fixation, 2 due to deep infection, 2 due to adverse wear, 1 due to psoas tendonitis, 1 due to recurrent dislocation, and 1 due to unexplained pain. Biomet ReCap and Magnum HRA components with hybrid fixation methods showed excellent survivorship for a minimally selected young patient cohort at 7 years.