Cementless total hip arthroplasty with large diameter metal-on-metal heads: short-term survivorship of 8059 hips from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Magnum metal-on-metal uncemented total hip replacement: 8- to 18-year outcomes of 211 cases

BACKGROUND

Reports of adverse reactions to metal debris contributed in part to a decline in use of large-bearing metal-on-metal total hip devices. We hypothesize an optimal trunnion design may reduce risk of this failure mode in large-bearing total hip arthroplasty systems. The purpose of this study is to report mid- to long-term outcomes for a single-surgeon series of 211 total hip arthroplasties using the large-bearing Biomet Magnum metal-on-metal system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2004 and January 2016, the primary surgeon performed 211 uncemented Magnum total hip arthroplasties in 181 patients. The average length of follow-up was 10.1 ± 3.5 years (range 8-18 years).

RESULTS

Using failure of any component as the endpoint, the overall survivorship rate was 98.1% at 10 years and 97.4% at 18 years. These eight failures (3.8% of cohort) included one case of adverse wear-related failure (0.5%), two cases of acetabular ingrowth failure (0.9%), three cases of trunnion corrosion (1.4%), one failure of late infection (0.5%), and one inappropriate revision of components for trochanteric nonunion without instability (0.5%). Excluding failed cases, all components were radiographically stable with no radiolucencies. Except for the one wear failure, ion testing revealed that 97.2% of cases were within optimal whole blood metal ion levels with the remaining ion test results within acceptable levels.

CONCLUSIONS

With the uncemented Magnum metal-on-metal total hip, we achieved 97.4% 18-year implant survivorship, exceeding the NICE criteria and registry benchmarks for implant survivorship. We observed a trunnion corrosion rate of 1.4% and no cases of instability. The single case of adverse wear-related failure was caused by acetabular component malposition.

Long-term survival analysis of cementless large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective study was to study the long-term survival and reasons for revisions of a single-type, large-diameter head (LDH) metal-on-metal (MoM) implant. A special study interest was to find the threshold level for revision in terms of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this cohort study, we retrospectively reviewed 234 patients (253 hips) who received 38 mm head size LDH MoM total hip arthroplasties (THAs) between 01 January 2004 and 31 December 2009 at our institution. Patient symptoms, conventional radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and whole blood metal ions were studied.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 11.5 years. The Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate of the implant was 89.6% at 10 years and 82.9% at 14.6 years. Overall, 34/253 (13.4%) hips were revised during the follow-up period and of these; 19/34 (55.9%) were revised due to ARMD. The prevalence of ARMD was 12.4% (29/234 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of the implant was on a moderate level as the 10-year cumulative survival rate was 89.6%. The exact threshold level for ARMD revision cannot be determined due to multiple variables affecting factors in re-operation decision-making.

Global Publication Trends and Research Hotspots of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A 21-Year Bibliometric Approach

BACKGROUND

As the number of primary hip and knee arthroplasties increases, revision cases correspondingly demonstrate high relative growth, gaining increasing attention. The present research aimed to investigate subject characteristics in revision hip and knee arthroplasty (RHKA) research using a bibliometric approach.

METHODS

Publications related to RHKA from 2000 to 2020 were searched in the Web of Science database. WPS Office, CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix were used to analyze the results.

RESULTS

Bibliometric analysis revealed 3290 records. Fifty-nine countries published manuscripts on RHKA. The United States contributed most and also had the highest number of international collaborations. The most relevant institution was the Mayo Clinic. Berry DJ and Parvizi J were the most productive and academic influential authors in RHKA, respectively. The most productive journal was the Journal of Arthroplasty. Co-occurrence analysis demonstrated "infection" to be the trend in RHKA. Thematic analysis displayed 16 keywords in hip arthroplasty and 14 keywords in knee arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The present study observed an increasing trend of research papers in RHKA. Institutions and scholars from the United States were found to dominate the field. Periprosthetic joint infection was likely a potential development trend and hotspot of RHKA.

Large Diameter Head in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The literature around use of Large Diameter Heads (LDH) is abundantly available for revision Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) but is lacking for primary uncomplicated THA. This systematic review was undertaken to synthesize data around primary THA involving LDH and analyze the associated complications (dislocation, volumetric wear, implant survivorship and functional score) along with reported effects on range of motion (ROM), patient reported outcomes and impingement rate/groin pain.

METHODS

A PRISMA compliant systematic review was done using extensive search in PubMed database, along with offline search looking for the literature published in English language between 2008 and 2018. The articles providing data on the use of large diameter heads (LDH) (36 mm or larger) on various bearing surfaces were collected. This included robust national joint registries of different countries. Narrative approach to data synthesis was used.

RESULTS

A total of 23 papers met our inclusion criteria, including six national joint registries. It was observed that LDH had significantly low dislocation rates, excellent implant survival rate as per Kaplan-Meier survivorship (> 90% at five years). Surgical approaches, except Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS), did not increase any risk of dislocation as long as it was meticulously repaired. There was no significant improvement in any functional scores or improved ROM.

CONCLUSIONS

LDH of 32-36 mm are now commonly used in primary THA and is accepted as a popular size. The beneficial effects of a large head size are negated beyond 38 mm. The most favored size for LDH THA, therefore, is 36 mm contrary to the older literature favoring 28 mm.

MRI findings, metal ion levels and clinical outcome of a complete series of large metal on metal THA: what's really going on?

INTRODUCTION:

Metal-on-metal (MoM) large head total hip arthroplasties (THAs) were discontinued early after their introduction because of the high number of failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). Aim of this study is to report the clinical outcome at a mid-term follow-up (FU) of a series of large-head MoM THA.

METHODS:

In this prospective study, 25 hips (24 patients, 3 males, 21 females, mean age 62.44 years) who have undergone primary THA with large head (diameter ⩾36 mm) MoM prosthesis were evaluated. Each patient underwent a standard follow-up after surgery, that included blood tests with metal ion levels (Co and Cr), x-ray of the pelvis, metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS-MRI) and clinical evaluation.

RESULTS:

At an average follow-up of 7.3 years, 4 hips have been surgically reviewed: 2 for causes not related to ARMD (1 heterotopic ossification and 1 periprosthetic fracture); the other 2 on the same patient (bilateral) with ARMD, who was eventually found to be allergic to nickel. Increased metal ions, osteolysis and severe MRI alterations were found in patients with ARMD. Asymptomatic alterations at MRI were found in 8 patients. Harris Hip Score improved after surgery from a mean of 51 points to a mean of 90 points ( p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings of this study show that not all the patients with MoM THA will develop clear symptoms of ARMD at mid-term follow-up. Patients should be closely monitored following protocols such as that proposed in the European Consensus Statement.

High Revision Rate for Large-head Metal-on-metal THA at a Mean of 7.1 Years: A Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) THA has largely been abandoned as a result of higher than anticipated revision rates. However, the majority of these implants are still in situ. Although earlier reports from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register noted similar short-term survivorship between large-diameter head MoM THA and conventional cemented THA, longer term survivorship of this population is unclear. Although reported revision rates for this implant group have been high, the majority of these implants have not been revised and followup is important to improve long-term management.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the 10-year competing risk survivorship of large-diameter head MoM THA with the survivorship of conventional THA in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register; (2) to report the large-diameter head MoM THA survival at the manufacturer/brand level; and (3) to identify the most common reasons for revision of large-diameter head MoM THA in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.

METHODS

The six most commonly used large-diameter head (≥ 38 mm) MoM THA devices in Finland between years 2004 and 2013 were selected (n = 10,959 implants). The completeness of the Finnish Registry is > 95% in primary THA and patients are censored from the date of death or at the point of emigration; followup continued until the end of 2015. The conventional THA control group consisted of the two most frequently used devices (Vision/Bimetric and ABG II/ABG II) with metal-on-polyethylene or ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces implanted between 2002 and 2013 (n = 5177). The study group was formed by selecting all pairs of large-diameter head MoM and reference THA protheses within the same age group ( < 49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75+ years), sex, diagnosis (osteoarthritis, other), and hospital yearly operation count (< 100 operations yearly, ≥ 100 operations yearly); 5166 matched pairs were identified. Revision for any reason was considered as the failure endpoint of followup. Implant survival (the proportion not revised) was calculated from corresponding cumulative incidence function adjusted for patient death as a competing event for revision. Large-diameter head MoM implant group revision hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with age group, sex, diagnosis, and hospital yearly operation count as confounding factors in a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Ten-year survivorship free from all-cause revision was lower for THAs that used a large-diameter femoral head than it was for the control group of conventional THA (83% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 82%-84%] versus 92% [95% CI, 91%-93%]). At the implant level, every large-diameter head MoM THA had a higher risk for revision compared with the conventional THA control group from the fourth postoperative year onward. The highest survival of MoM THA was 88% (95% CI, 86%-90%) for the ReCap/Bimetric and the lowest survival was 46% (95% CI, 41%-51%) for the recalled ASR with either the Summit® or Corail® stem. The most common revision reason in the MoM THA group was adverse reaction to metal debris, whereas dislocation was predominant in the conventional THA control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The revision rate for all large-diameter head MoM THAs in this timeframe in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register is unacceptably high and in our view supports the decision to abandon their use. In agreement with the directives of other national organizations, we recommend regular followup of all patients with large-diameter head MoM THA. Based on our results, strict guidelines for followup should be maintained over the lifetime of the implant to assess patient symptoms and recommend revision when indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Systematic Screening of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris after Recap-M2A-Magnum Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background and Aims:

An adverse reaction to metal debris is a known complication after large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. However, the failure rate varies depending on the implant design. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence of adverse reaction to metal debris, as well as the symptoms and risk factors after undergoing a ReCap-M2a-Magnum large diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Materials and Methods:

Between 2005 and 2012, 1188 patients (1329 hips) underwent ReCap-M2a-Magnum total hip arthroplasty at our institution. Systematic screening for adverse reaction to metal debris was arranged using the Oxford Hip Score questionnaire, hip and pelvic radiographs, and assessments of the serum chromium and cobalt ion levels. Clinical evaluation and magnetic resonance imaging were performed for the symptomatic patients, as well as those with either chromium or cobalt ion levels ⩾5 µg/L. The prevalence of adverse reaction to metal debris after ReCap-M2a-Magnum total hip arthroplasty was assessed, and the risk factors for adverse reaction to metal debris were evaluated using logistic regression. The mean follow-up time was 5.2 (0.003–9.1) years. This study was an extension of a previous study conducted at our institution with 80 patients.

Results:

In total, 33 patients (33 hips, 2.5% of all hips) required a revision operation due to adverse reaction to metal debris. Moreover, 157 hips exhibited definitive adverse reaction to metal debris, but a revision operation was not performed (157 of 1329 hips, 11.8% of all hips). Overall, 190 out of 1329 (14.3%) hips had definitive adverse reaction to metal debris. Pain, subluxation sensation, clicking, swelling, a small head size, and a fair/poor Oxford Hip Score were associated with definitive adverse reaction to metal debris.

Conclusion:

We found a high prevalence of adverse reaction to metal debris in the ReCap-M2a-Magnum total hip arthroplasty patients in this study; however, most of the patients did not require revision operations.

Increased risk of revision of cementless stemmed total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Data from the national joint registries in Australia and England and Wales have revealed inferior medium-term survivorship for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) than for metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA. Based on data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA), we compared the revision risk of cementless stemmed THA with MoM and MoP bearings and we also compared MoM THA to each other.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 32,678 patients who were operated from 2002 through 2010 with cementless stemmed THA with either MoM bearings (11,567 patients, 35%) or MoP bearings (21,111 patients, 65%). The patients were followed until revision, death, emigration, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2011), and median follow-up was 3.6 (interquartile range (IQR): 2.4-4.8) years for MoM bearings and 3.4 (IQR: 2.0-5.8) years for MoP bearings. Multivariable regression in the presence of competing risk of death was used to assess the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason (with 95% confidence interval (CI)).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of revision at 8 years of follow-up was 7.0% (CI: 6.0-8.1) for MoM bearings and 5.1% (CI: 4.7-5.6) for MoP bearings. At 6 years of follow-up, the RR of revision for any reason was 1.5 (CI: 1.3-1.7) for MoM bearings compared to MoP bearings. The RR of revision for any reason was higher for the ASR (adjusted RR = 6.4, CI: 5.0-8.1), the Conserve Plus (adjusted RR = 1.7, CI: 1.1-2.5) and "other" acetabular components (adjusted RR = 2.4, CI: 1.5-3.9) than for MoP THA at 6 years of follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

At medium-term follow-up, the survivorship for cementless stemmed MoM THA was inferior to that for MoP THA, and metal-related problems may cause higher revision rates for MoM bearings with longer follow-up.

Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: dislocation infrequent but survivorship poor

BACKGROUND

Use of large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) articulations in THA increased, at least in part, because of the possibility of achieving improved joint stability and excellent wear characteristics in vitro. However, there have been subsequent concerning reports with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), pseudotumors, and systemic complications related to metal ions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to determine at a minimum of 2 years' followup (1) the proportion of patients who experienced a dislocation; (2) the short-term survivorship obtained with these implants; (3) the causes of failure and the proportion of patients who developed ARMD; and (4) whether there were any identifiable risk factors for revision.

METHODS

We reviewed the results of 1235 patients who underwent 1440 large-diameter MoM primary THAs at our institution using two acetabular devices from a single manufacturer with minimum 2-year followup. Large-diameter MoM devices were used in 48% (1695 of 3567) of primary THAs during the study period. We generally used these implants in younger, more active, higher-demand patients, in patients considered at higher risk of instability, and in patients with adequate bone stock to achieve stable fixation without use of screws. Clinical records and radiographs were reviewed to determine the incidence and etiology of revision. Patients whose hips were revised were compared with those not revised to identify risk factors; Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed as was multivariate analysis to account for potential confounding variables when evaluating risk factors. Minimum followup was 2 years (average, 7 years; range, 2-12 years); complete followup was available in 85% of hips (1440 of 1695).

RESULTS

Dislocation occurred in one hip overall (<1%; one of 1440). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed survival free of component revision was 87% at 12 years (95% confidence interval, 84%-90%). The two most common indications for revision were ARMD (48%; 47 of 108 hips revised) and loosening or failure of ingrowth (31%; 34 of 108). Risk factors for component revision were younger age at surgery (relative risk [RR] 0.98 per each increased year; p=0.02), higher cup angle of inclination (RR 1.03 per each increased degree; p=0.04), and female sex (RR 1.67; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Large-diameter MoM THAs are associated with a very low dislocation rate, but failure secondary to ARMD and loosening or lack of ingrowth occur frequently. Patients with MoM THA should be encouraged to return for clinical and radiographic followup, and clinicians should maintain a low threshold to perform a systematic evaluation. Early diagnosis and appropriate treatment are recommended to prevent the damaging effects of advanced ARMD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Therapeutic study.

Revisions of monoblock metal-on-metal THAs have high early complication rates

BACKGROUND

A relatively high percentage of monoblock metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (THAs) undergo early revision. Revision of these THAs poses challenges unique to this implant type. The early complications after these revisions remain unreported as do the clinical and demographic factors associated with these complications.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We describe (1) the frequency of early complications after revision of monoblock metal-on-metal THA; and (2) the clinical and demographic factors associated with complications.

METHODS

A review of our institution's total joint registry identified 107 patients who underwent 114 revisions of monoblock metal-on-metal THAs. Mean patient age at revision was 60 years (range, 17-84 years), and 65% of the patients were women. Mean followup after revision was 14 months (range, 0-122 months). Revision diagnoses included metallosis (51%), aseptic loosening (27%), infection (7%), pain (6%), malposition (4%), instability (3%), iliopsoas impingement (2%), and periprosthetic fracture (1%). Major complications (instability, infection, aseptic loosening, and wound complications) were documented and included in the analysis. Minor postoperative complications such as urinary tract infection were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 114 procedures (20%) involved at least one early complication after revision of monoblock metal-on-metal THA with 18 (16%) undergoing at least one additional subsequent surgery. The most common complications included aseptic loosening (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), and acetabular fracture (3%). Patients who sustained a complication after revision surgery were older on average than those who did not (66 years versus 58 years, p=0.003). There were no differences in complication rate with respect to sex, time to revision, or revision diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and reoperations occur frequently after revision for failed monoblock metal-on-metal THA (20% and 16%, respectively), and older patients appear to be at greater risk for complications after these revisions. Aseptic loosening, deep infection, and instability are all of great concern after revision and surgeons should be aware of these potential complications when undertaking revision of these THAs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: comparison of three Designs from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Background and Aims:

Large headed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty may produce more metal ions than hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Increased metal-ion levels may be associated with higher revision rates due to adverse reaction to metal debris. The purpose of our study was to compare the survivorship of three hip resurfacing arthroplasty designs with their analogous cementless large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties.

Material and Methods:

Based on data obtained from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the revision risks of three metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty/total hip arthroplasty design couples performed during 2001–2011 were analyzed using the Cox regression model.

Results:

In the Cox regression analysis for compared design pairs adjusted for age, gender, operated side, head size, diagnosis, and implant, there was no statistically significant difference in revision risk between ReCap hip resurfacing arthroplasty and Bimetric/ReCap total hip arthroplasty (risk ratio = 1.43, confidence interval = 0.95–2.14, p = 0.09) or between Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty and Synergy/Birmingham hip resurfacing total hip arthroplasty (risk ratio = 1.35, confidence interval = 0.75–2.43, p = 0.31). However, the revision risk of Corail and Summit/articular surface replacement total hip arthroplasty (ASR HRA) was significantly increased compared to ASR HRA. (risk ratio = 0.73, confidence interval = 0.54–0.98, p = 0.04).

Conclusion:

We conclude that the short-term revision risk of large headed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties was not increased compared to analogous hip resurfacing arthroplasties in two out of three devices studied at a nationwide level. There may be implant-related factors having an effect on the success of single manufacturer devices. However, more information on the incidence of adverse soft-tissue reactions in these patient cohorts is needed.

Adverse reaction to metal debris after ReCap-M2A-Magnum large-diameter-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The clinical findings of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following large-diameter-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (LDH MoM THA) may include periarticular fluid collections, soft tissue masses, and gluteal muscle necrosis. The ReCap-M2a-Magnum LDH MoM THA was the most commonly used hip device at our institution from 2005 to 2012. We assessed the prevalence of and risk factors for ARMD with this device.

METHODS

74 patients (80 hips) had a ReCap-M2a-Magnum LDH MoM THA during the period August 2005 to December 2006. These patients were studied with hip MRI, serum chromium and cobalt ion measurements, the Oxford hip score questionnaire, and by clinical examination. The prevalence of ARMD was recorded and risk factors for ARMD were assessed using logistic regression models. The mean follow-up time was 6.0 (5.5-6.7) years.

RESULTS

A revision operation due to ARMD was needed by 3 of 74 patients (3 of 80 hips). 8 additional patients (8 hips) had definite ARMD, but revision was not performed. 29 patients (32 hips) were considered to have a probable or possible ARMD. Altogether, 43 of 80 hips had a definite, probable, or possible ARMD and 34 patients (37 hips) were considered not to have ARMD. In 46 of 78 hips, MRI revealed a soft tissue mass or a collection of fluid (of any size). The symptoms clicking in the hip, local hip swelling, and a feeling of subluxation were associated with ARMD.

INTERPRETATION

ARMD is common after ReCap-M2a-Magnum total hip arthroplasty, and we discourage the use of this device. Asymptomatic patients with a small fluid collection on MRI may not need instant revision surgery but must be followed up closely.

Effect of femoral head size on risk of revision for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of 42,379 primary procedures from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous population-based registry studies have shown that larger femoral head size is associated with reduced risk of revision for dislocation. However, the previous data have not included large numbers of hip resurfacing arthroplasties or large metal-on-metal (> 36-mm) femoral head arthroplasties. We evaluated the association between femoral component head size and the risk of revision for dislocation after THA by using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

42,379 patients who were operated during 1996-2010 fulfilled our criteria. 18 different cup/stem combinations were included. The head-size groups studied (numbers of cases) were 28 mm (23,800), 32 mm (4,815), 36 mm (3,320), and > 36 mm (10,444). Other risk factors studied were sex, age group (18-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and > 80 years), and time period of operation (1996-2000, 2001-2005, 2006-2010).

RESULTS

The adjusted risk ratio in the Cox model for a revision operation due to dislocation was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.26-0.62) for 32-mm head size, 0.41 (0.24-0.70) for 36-mm head size, and 0.09 (0.05-0.17) for > 36-mm head size compared to implants with a head size of 28 mm.

INTERPRETATION

Larger femoral heads clearly reduce the risk of dislocation. The difference in using heads of > 36 mm as opposed to 28-mm heads for the overall revision rate at 10 years follow-up is about 2%. Thus, although attractive from a mechanical point of view, based on recent less favorable clinical outcome data on these large heads, consisting mainly of metal-on-metal prostheses, one should be cautious using these implants.