Resurfacing registers concern

Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome

Aims

We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a review of registries that are full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Results

Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined, though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient reported outcome measures.

Conclusion

More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly important, the experience of established registries will be valuable in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the quality of data. Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of these data to monitor outcomes accurately. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.

5-year clinical and radiostereometric analysis (RSA) follow-up of 39 CUT femoral neck total hip prostheses in young osteoarthritis patients

BACKGROUND

As the number of young patients receiving total hip arthroplasty increases, bone-saving implantations facilitating possible future revision, such as the CUT femoral neck prosthesis, are gaining importance. There have been few medium-term results reported for this prosthesis, however, and its migration pattern has not been analyzed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

39 consecutive CUT femoral neck prostheses were implanted in 32 patients, mean age 37 (17-58) years, with symptomatic osteoarthritis and either less than 55 years of age or with an anatomic anomaly preventing implantation of a diaphyseal stem (n = 1). Patients were followed prospectively using routine clinical examination and radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks postoperatively and annually thereafter. This study evaluated the 5-year follow-up results.

RESULTS

The mean Harris hip score increased from 26 (3-51) points preoperatively to 84 (66-98), 86 (55-98), and 87 (47-98) points at 3, 12, and 60 months. 3 stems were revised: 1 after luxation following excessive subsidence due to an undersized component and 2 due to persistent strong thigh pain. 5-year survival was 95% (95% CI: 87-100). Initial migration varied widely in magnitude; median total tip migration was 0.42 mm (0.09-9.4) at 6 weeks, 0.92 mm (0.18-5.9) at 1 year, and 1.10 mm (0.13-6.4) at 5 years. Even after high initial migration, stabilization was achieved in 31 of the 35 RSA-evaluable implants. 3 prostheses showed progressive continuous migration throughout the entire follow-up period, and were considered to be loose, suggesting reduced long-term survival.

INTERPRETATION

Currently, we cannot recommend the CUT femoral neck prosthesis as a routine treatment option in (young) patients requiring THA. The CUT prosthesis may not reach the 90% survival benchmark at 10 years, and the prosthesis is difficult to implant. If initial stabilization is achieved, however, aseptic loosening is unlikely. A good clinical outcome was seen in the surviving prostheses. We will continue to follow this patient group.

Microseparation, fluid pressure and flow in failures of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties

OBJECTIVES

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing was introduced into clinical practice because it was perceived to be a better alternative to conventional total hip replacement for young and active patients. However, an increasing number of reports of complications have arisen focusing on design and orientation of the components, the generation of metallic wear particles and serum levels of metallic ions. The procedure introduced a combination of two elements: large-dimension components and hard abrasive particles of metal wear. The objective of our study was to investigate the theory that microseparation of the articular surfaces draws in a high volume of bursal fluid and its contents into the articulation, and at relocation under load would generate high pressures of fluid ejection, resulting in an abrasive water jet.

METHODS

This theoretical concept using MoM resurfacing components (head diameter 55 mm) was modelled mathematically and confirmed experimentally using a material-testing machine that pushed the head into the cup at a rate of 1000 mm/min until fully engaged.

RESULTS

The mathematical model showed the pattern but not the force of fluid ejection, the highest pressures were expected when the separation of the components was only a fraction of one millimetre. The experimental work confirmed the results; with the mean peak ejection pressure of 43 763 N/m(2) equivalent to 306 mmHg or 5 psi.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanical effect of the high-pressure abrasive water jet is the likely cause of the spectrum of complications reported with metal-on-metal resurfacing. Investigating serum levels of metallic elements may not be the best method for assessing the local mechanical effects of the abrasive water jet.

Survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature

We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature to relate the survival of hybrid metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty devices to a National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark for choosing a primary total hip replacement, which is a survival rate of 90% at a follow-up of ten years. A total of 29 articles (10 621 resurfaced hips) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 0.6 to 10.5 years and the survival of the implant ranged from 84% to 100%. Of the 10 621 hips, 370 were revised (3.5%), with aseptic loosening as the most frequent mode of failure. None of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants used to date met the full ten-year NICE benchmark of survival. A total of 13 studies showed satisfactory survival compared with the three-year NICE benchmark.