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

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements with dual-mobility bearings and acetabular component retention

Aims

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years).

Results

In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)).

Conclusion

In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications.

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.

Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study

BACKGROUND

Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties.

METHODS

Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties.

RESULTS

A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53-4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06-4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03-3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision.

CONCLUSION

Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.

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.

Role of Hip Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Avascular Necrosis of the Hip: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Avascular necrosis (AVN) or osteonecrosis of the femoral head occurs as a result of a vascular supply disruption that could lead to hip osteoarthritis. Recently, several joint-preserving procedures have been suggested to improve the outcome of AVN, including hip arthroscopy. This systematic review aimed to investigate the role of hip arthroscopy to preserve hip joints suffering from AVN.

METHODS

This review was conducted to collect data on hip arthroscopy from the available literature for the management of AVN. The collected articles included those that were focused mainly on the management of AVN assisted by arthroscopy and published up to 2020 that were searched in four databases using such keywords as "Avascular Necrosis", "AVN", and "Osteonecrosis" in combination with "Hip Arthroscopy" or "Arthroscopic Hip Surgery".

RESULTS

In total, 13 articles met the eligibility criteria, and no severe complications were reported after arthroscopy in patients with AVN. Moreover, the Harris scores were higher than 79 after the operation. The majority of the assessments showed that the use of arthroscopy was effective in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AVN, except for one study, which had been performed on patients with stage IV AVN.

CONCLUSION

The findings supported the idea that hip arthroscopy is effective in the treatment of AVN. This approach is becoming more popular for the diagnosis and treatment of hip disorders.

Tantalum Versus Titanium Acetabular Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Current Concept and a Review of the Current Literature

BACKGROUND

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is becoming an increasingly popular and efficacious medical procedure. There have been a number of studies evaluating tantalum acetabular cups compared with the conventional titanium acetabular cups for use in total hip arthroplasties. We conducted a systematic review and summarize clinical studies comparing tantalum acetabular cups with the conventional titanium acetabular cups for use in primary total hip arthroplasties.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to find all relevant clinical studies until March 2020, which then underwent a further selection criteria. The inclusion criteria was set as follows: Reporting on human patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty; Direct comparison between tantalum acetabular cups with conventional titanium acetabular cups for use in primary total hip arthroplasty; Radiological evaluation (cup migration, osteointegration); Clinical (functional scores, need for subsequent revision, patient-reported outcomes; Post-operative complications; Reporting findings in the English Language. After a thorough search a total of six studies were included in the review. The primary outcome measures were clinical outcomes, implant migration, change in bone mineral density and rate of revision and infection.

RESULTS

Tantalum is superior to titanium with regards to fewer radiolucencies, 100% survivorship at 12 years post-operatively, improved long-term implant osteointegration and survivorship as well as decreasing osteolysis and mechanical loosening. There has been no significant difference in radioisometric analysis, bone mineral density or Harris Hip Score. Revision and infection rates were found to be significantly lower in tantalum group at 10 years from pooled data of national joint registry (England and Wales), while it was found to be higher in the same at 9 years from pooled data of Swedish and Australian registry although this is not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The use of tantalum should be reserved for cases of high risk of failure or mechanical loosening, where failure of a contralateral joint occurred. The use of Tantalum carries lower risk of failure and infection. Further studies with longer follow-up would be useful in drawing further conclusions.

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.

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.

Metal on metal hip arthroplasty surveillance at a tertiary centre: design, patients' adherence, and cost analysis

PURPOSE

Metal-on-metal (MOM) bearings may carry higher than expected revision rates and serious complications: an appropriate surveillance may be advocated. Aims of this paper were to (1) present the biennial experience of MOM surveillance in a tertiary centre, (2) describe the patients' adherence to monitoring, and (3) analyze the costs of the surveillance METHODS: The design of MOM surveillance was developed according to the guidelines of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. The adherence to every follow-up was expressed as raw numbers and percentages. A cost analysis (direct and indirect costs) was conducted and projected in a five year time span.

RESULTS

About 61.1% of patients adhered to the first step of the surveillance, and 13.5% answered to a specific questionnaire about MOM implant. About 36.2% of the patients participated for the annual follow-up, and 18.1% entered the six month follow-up program. Of the implants, 2.5% required a revision. A two year surveillance costs €45,520.30, €236,443.98 (57.7%) including revisions. Five-year projected costs will be €23.113,64 (5.6%). Hospital indirect costs, including personnel working days, were €150,392.30 (36.7%). The estimated economic burden for seven years will be €409,949.92 (direct € 259,557.62, indirect €150,392.30).

CONCLUSION

Patients' adherence to MOM surveillance is modest and the rate of dropouts seems not to stop over the time. Most of the expenses are due to revision surgeries, as well as indirect costs. Economy of scale may be suggested to reduce the costs, involving as much MOM population as possible.

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.

Wear Rates of XLPE Nearly 50% Lower Than Previously Thought After Adjusting for Initial Creep: An RCT Comparing 4 Bearing Combinations

Background

The ideal bearing combination for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains debatable. Highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) is widely used, but long-term wear rates are not fully known, nor is how much the initial "creep," if any, affects overall wear. Additionally, the use of oxidized zirconium (OxZir) is purported to lower polyethylene wear rates, but this has not been proven. We present the 10-year data of a cohort of patients who underwent THA. Patients were prospectively randomized to 1 of 4 bearing combinations: a conventional ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or XLPE acetabular liner coupled with either a cobalt-chromium (CoCr) or OxZir femoral head. The aims of the study were to (1) assess the extent to which creep affected overall wear rates and (2) assess wear rates between OxZir and CoCr with polyethylene.

Methods

A total of 92 hips (92 patients) between the ages of 22 and 65 years (mean, 52.2 ± 9.3 years) were randomized to 4 groups. At 10 years, 70 (76%) of the hips were available for analysis; patients who had undergone revision, had died, or were lost to follow-up were excluded from final analysis. Radiographic analysis was performed using a validated digital assessment program to determine linear, volumetric, and directional wear of the polyethylene for all 4 bearing couples. Radiographic assessments were performed immediately postoperatively, at 6 and 12 weeks, and then annually for a minimum of 10 years.

Results

XLPE had significantly lower wear rates than UHMWPE. Once creep was eliminated, annual and overall wear rates were nearly 50% lower than have been previously reported. This was proportionally more important in the XLPE group than in the UHMWPE group. There was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower wear rate with OxZir heads.

Conclusions

Creep plays a notably more important role than first thought. Once creep was eliminated, the overall wear rate was even lower than previously assumed. This has important implications for the overall survivorship of hip arthroplasty implants.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

The Outcome of Revision Surgery for Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (MoM THAs) are frequently revised, though there is a paucity of functional outcome data. We report on outcomes and prognostic factors predictive of outcome from the largest series of MoM THA revisions to date.

METHODS

A single-center consecutive series of revisions from MoM THAs was identified. The cohort was divided by the presence or absence of symptoms prior to revision. The primary outcome was functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score [OHS]). Secondary outcomes were complication data, pre-revision and post-revision blood metal ions, and modified Oxford classification of pre-revision magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty revisions at median follow-up of 5.48 years were identified. Median OHS improved from 29 to 37 with revision (P < .001). Symptomatic patients experienced the greatest functional benefit (ΔOHS 6.5 vs 1.4, P = .012), while the function of asymptomatic patients was unaffected by revision (P = .4). Use of a cobalt-chromium-containing bearing surface at revision and increased body mass index were predictive of poor functional outcome.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients experience greater functional benefit from revision surgery but do not regain the same level of function as patients who were asymptomatic prior to revision. Body mass index and use of cobalt-chromium-containing bearing surfaces are prognostic for poor functional outcome.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The risk of early complications is high after monoblock acetabular metal-on-metal (MoM) THA revisions. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding clinical complications after isolated head-liner exchange of modular MoM THA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this study were (1) to describe the frequency of early complications after an isolated head-liner exchange revision of modular MoM THA; and (2) to determine whether patients who experienced complications or dislocation after head-liner exchanges had higher serum chromium (Cr) or cobalt (Co) ion levels than those who did not.

METHODS

A review of our institution's total joint registry retrospectively identified 53 patients who underwent 54 liner exchange revisions of a modular acetabular MoM THA. The study period was from April 2008 to April 2016 at a single tertiary care center. During this period, isolated head-liner exchanges (rather than more extensive revisions) were performed in patients if they did not have evidence of loosening of the acetabular or femoral components. Reasons for revision surgery included pain, mechanical symptoms, radiographic evidence of osteolysis, elevated serum metal ions, and MRI abnormalities with 40 of the 54 hips having pain or mechanical symptoms and 38 of 54 hips having multiple reasons for revision before surgery. Patients were excluded if they did not meet the minimum postrevision followup or had the modular liner exchange secondary to infection. All revisions were from a single manufacturer with one head-liner exchange of a MoM THA from another manufacturer excluded during the study period. The mean time from index MoM THA to modular exchange was 96 (SD ± 36) months. Because the focus of this study was early complications, we had a minimum 90-day followup duration for inclusion. Mean followup after revision was 15 months (SD ± 12); a total of 56% (30 of 54) had followup of at least 12 months' duration. Complications (dislocation, infection) and reoperations were obtained by chart review performed by individuals other than the treating physician(s). Serum metal ion levels were obtained before head-liner exchange. The median serum Cr and Co levels were 6 µg/L (range, 0-76 µg/L) and 12 µg/L (range, 0-163 µg/L), respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 54 revision THAs, 15 (28%) developed complications. Nine (17%) occurred within 90 days of the revision surgery and 11 (20%) resulted in reoperation. The most common complication was dislocation (12 of 54 [22%]) with recurrent dislocation noted in eight of these 12 patients. All patients with recurrent dislocation continued to dislocate and underwent repeat revision. Patients with dislocation had higher median serum Cr and Co ion levels than those without dislocation (Cr: 24 [range, 11-76] versus 4 [range, 0-70], p = 0.001 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10-57]; Co: 41 [range, 6-163] versus 8 [range, 0-133], p = 0.016 [95% CI, 6-141]). Three (6%) of the 54 patients underwent repeat surgery for deep space infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and reoperations are common after modular head-liner exchange in the setting of a failed MoM THA. Our study likely underestimates the frequency of complications and revisions because the followup period in this report was relatively short. Dislocation is the most common complication and elevated serum metal ion levels may be a predictor of dislocation. These findings are concerning and surgeons should be aware of the high complication risk associated with this procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Perioperative factors associated with increased length of stay after revision of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

Objective

To investigate patient factors influencing length-of-stay (LOS) after revision metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

We reviewed 23 hips undergoing revision of a MoM THA with minimum 2-year follow-up. A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict LOS using multiple variables.

Results

Average length of stay (LOS) was 2.1 days. Multiple linear regression analysis identified a significant correlation between presence of an abductor injury (beta = 0.8886; p < 0.0001), patient age (beta = -0.4452, p = 0.0083), and pre-revision head size (beta = 0.4082; p = 0.0172) with LOS (R² = 0.6351, p = 0.0002).

Conclusion

Patients with abductor injury, larger femoral heads, and younger age are at risk for longer LOS.

Temporal trends and survivorship of total hip arthroplasty in very young patients

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe temporal trends and survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in very young patients, aged ≤ 20 years.

Patients and Methods

A descriptive observational study was undertaken using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between April 2003 and March 2017. All patients aged ≤ 20 years at the time of THA were included and the primary outcome was revision surgery. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and Kaplan–Meier estimates calculated for the cumulative implant survival.

Results

A total of 769 THAs were performed in 703 patients. The median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.6 to 7.8). Eight patients died and 35 THAs were revised. The use of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and resurfacing procedures declined after 2008. The most frequently recorded indications for revision were loosening (20%) and infection (20%), although the absolute risk of these events occurring was low (0.9%). Factors associated with lower implant survival were MoM and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings and resurfacing arthroplasty ( vs ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings, p = 0.002), and operations performed by surgeons who undertook few THAs in this age group as recorded in the NJR ( vs those with five or more recorded operations, p = 0.030). Kaplan–Meier estimates showed 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94% to 98%) survivorship of implants at five years.

Conclusion

Within the NJR, the overall survival for very young patients undergoing THA exceeded 96% during the first five postoperative years. In the absence of studies that can better account for differences in the characteristics of the patients, surgeons should consider the association between early revision and the type of implant, the number of THAs performed in these patients, and the bearing surface when performing THA in very young patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1320–9.

Preventing Complications Associated With Operating on Taper Corrosion

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty for the treatment of taper corrosion has become increasingly common. The purpose of this portion of the symposium was to describe the most common complications of this procedure and to delineate specific measures that might be taken to prevent these complications.

METHODS

A literature review was performed focusing on the results and complications of revision total hip arthroplasty performed for taper corrosion.

RESULTS

The most common modes of failure after revision total hip arthroplasty in the setting of taper corrosion include the 4 I's: infection, instability, implant loosening, and ions (recurrent adverse local tissue reaction).

CONCLUSION

Strategies specifically directed toward each of these 4 failure modes have the potential to significantly reduce the risk of complications.

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.

Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments

Objectives

In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined.

Methods

A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).

Results

Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone.Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282-288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1.

Aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty in the elderly

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the rate of perioperative complications following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients aged ≥ 80 years with that in those aged < 80 years, and to identify risk factors for the incidence of serious adverse events in those aged ≥ 80 years using a large validated national database.

Patients and Methods

Patients who underwent aseptic revision THA were identified in the 2005 to 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database and stratified into two age groups: those aged < 80 years and those aged ≥ 80 years. Preoperative and procedural characteristics were compared. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare the risk of postoperative complications and readmission. Risk factors for the development of a serious adverse event in those aged ≥ 80 years were characterized.

Results

The study included 7569 patients aged < 80 years and 1419 were aged ≥ 80 years. Multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of perioperative mortality, pneumonia, urinary tract infection and the requirement for a blood transfusion and an extended length of stay in those aged ≥ 80 years compared with those aged < 80 years. Independent risk factors for the development of a serious adverse event in those aged ≥ 80 years include an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of ≥ 3 and procedures performed under general anaesthesia.

Conclusion

Even after controlling for patient and procedural characteristics, aseptic revision THA is associated with greater risks in patients aged ≥ 80 years compared with younger patients. This is important for counselling and highlights the need for medical optimization in these vulnerable patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:143–51.

The effect of bearing surface on risk of periprosthetic joint infection in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched for comparative randomized and observational studies that reported the incidence of PJI for different bearing surfaces. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and performed data extraction. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model in accordance with methods of the Cochrane group.

RESULTS

Our search strategy revealed 2272 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. These comprised 11 randomized controlled trials and six observational studies. The overall quality of included studies was high but the observational studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate adjustment for confounding factors. The overall cumulative incidence of PJI across all studies was 0.78% (1514/193 378). For each bearing combination, the overall incidence was as follows: MoP 0.85% (1353/158 430); CoP 0.38% (67/17 489); and CoC 0.53% (94/17 459). The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the three bearing combinations in terms of risk of PJI.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the clinical studies available, there is no evidence that bearing choice influences the risk of PJI. Future research, including basic science studies and large, adequately controlled registry studies, may be helpful in determining whether implant materials play a role in determining the risk of PJI following arthroplasty surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:134-42.

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.

The risk of cardiac failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score.

RESULTS

The risk of cardiac failure was lower in the MoM cohort compared with the non-MoM cohort (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.901; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.853 to 0.953). The risk of cardiac failure was similar following matching (aHR 0.909; 95% CI 0.838 to 0.987) and the findings were consistent in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

The risk of cardiac failure following total hip arthroplasty was not increased in those in whom MoM implants were used, compared with those in whom other types of prostheses were used, in the first seven years after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:20-7.

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.