Revisions of Modular Metal-on-metal THA Have a High Risk of Early Complications

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OUTCOME

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

SURVIVAL RATE

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

[Contemporary indications for aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroplasties and revision procedures will continue to rise over the next decades. In 2020 in Germany, 75% of all revision surgeries involved an exchange of at least one component; exchanges of all components were carried out in 27.5% of the revisions. The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening, infections, periprosthetic fractures, instabilities, and metal-related pathologies.

INDICATIONS

Aseptic loosening remains the most common reason for revision. However, the indications for hip arthroplasty revisions have changed over time, with a decrease in revisions due to aseptic loosening and an increase in revisions due to infection and periprosthetic fracture. The rate of dislocations remained approximately constant over the past decade, with international differences. Metal-associated pathologies will continue to play a significant role in revision hip arthroplasty.

Outcomes of isolated head-liner exchange versus full acetabular component revision in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0-8.6) years.

RESULTS

In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62-3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40-6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87-5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94-4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Outcomes of Isolated Head and Liner Exchange Using Large Femoral Heads and Modern Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Previous reports on the outcomes of isolated head and liner exchange in revision total hip arthroplasty have found high rates of instability after these surgeries. Most reports have studied constructs using ≤28 mm femoral heads. The purpose of this study was to determine if modern techniques with the use of larger head sizes can improve the rate of instability after head and liner exchange.

METHODS

We identified 138 hips in 132 patients who underwent isolated head and liner exchange for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (57%), acute infection (27%), metallosis (13%), or other (2%). All patients underwent revision with either 32 (23%), 36 (62%), or 40 (15%) mm diameter heads. Cross-linked polyethylene was used in all revisions. Lipped and/or offset liners were used in 104 (75%) hips. Average follow-up was 3.5 (1.0-9.1) years. Statistical analyses were performed with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Revision-free survivorship for any cause was 94.6% and for aseptic causes was 98.2% at 5 years. 11 (8%) hips experienced a complication with 7 (5%) hips requiring additional revision surgery. After revision, 4 (3%) hips experienced dislocation, 5 (4%) hips experienced infection, and 1 (1%) hip was revised for trunnionosis. No demographic or surgical factors significantly affected outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that isolated head and liner exchange using large femoral heads and modern liners provides for better stability than previous reports. The most common complication was infection. We did not identify specific patient, surgical, or implant factors that reduced the risk of instability or other complication.

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.