Metal-on-Metal Testing to Salvage a Device Disaster: Commentary on an article by Gulraj S. Matharu, BSc(Hons), MBChB, MRCS, MRes, et al.: "The Effectiveness of Blood Metal Ions in Identifying Patients with Unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris"

The contribution of the histopathological examination to the diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions in arthroplasty

The histopathological examination of the periprosthetic soft tissue and bone has contributed to the identification and description of the morphological features of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR)/adverse reactions to metallic debris (ARMD). The need of a uniform vocabulary for all disciplines involved in the diagnosis and management of ALTR/ARMD and of clarification of the parameters used in the semi-quantitative scoring systems for their classification has been considered a pre-requisite for a meaningful interdisciplinary evaluation.

This review of key terms used for ALTR/ARMD has resulted in the following outcomes: (a) pseudotumor is a descriptive term for ALTR/ARMD, classifiable in two main types according to its cellular composition defining its clinical course; (b) the substitution of the term metallosis with presence of metallic wear debris, since it cannot be used as a category of implant failure or histological diagnosis; (c) the term aseptic lymphocytic-dominated vasculitis- associated lesion (ALVAL) should be replaced due to the absence of a vasculitis with ALLTR/ALRMD for lymphocytic-predominant and AMLTR/AMRMD for macrophage-predominant reaction.

This review of the histopathological classifications of ALTR/ARMD has resulted in the following outcomes: (a) distinction between cell death and tissue necrosis; (b) the association of corrosion metallic debris with adverse local lymphocytic reaction and tissue necrosis; (c) the importance of cell and particle debris for the viscosity and density of the lubricating synovial fluid; (d) a consensus classification of lymphocytic infiltrate in soft tissue and bone marrow; (e) evaluation of the macrophage infiltrate in soft tissues and bone marrow; (f) classification of macrophage induced osteolysis/aseptic loosening as a delayed type of ALTR/ARMD; (g) macrophage motility and migration as possible driving factor for osteolysis; (h) usefulness of the histopathological examination for the natural history of the adverse reactions, radiological correlation, post-marketing surveillance, and implant registries.

The review of key terms used for the description and histopathological classification of ALTR/ARMD has resulted in a comprehensive, new standard for all disciplines involved in their diagnosis, clinical management, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:399-419. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210013

Intra-articular biomaterials-assisted delivery to treat temporomandibular joint disorders

The temporomandibular joint disorder, also known as myofascial pain syndrome, is considered one of the prevalent chronic pain diseases caused by muscle inflammation and cartilage degradation in head and neck, and thus influences even biopsychosocial conditions in a lifetime. There are several current treatment methodologies relieving inflammation and preventing degradation of the joint complex. One of the promising non-surgical treatment methods is an intra-articular injection of drugs such as corticosteroids, analgesics, and anti-depressants. However, the side effects of drugs due to frequent injections and over-doses, including dizziness, dry mouth, and possible drug dependency are considered limitations. Thus, the delivery of therapeutic molecules through the use of nano/microparticles is currently considered as a promising strategy primarily due to the controlled release. This review highlights the nano/microparticle systems for effective intra-articular therapeutics delivery to prevent cartilage degradation and protect subchondral bone in a temporomandibular joint.

Blood Metal Ion Thresholds to Identify Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: An External Multicenter Validation Study of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Implants

BACKGROUND

The authors of recent studies have reported newly devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds to predict adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) in patients who have undergone unilateral or bilateral metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. These thresholds were most effective for identifying patients at low risk of ARMD. We investigated whether these newly devised blood metal ion thresholds could effectively identify patients at risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty in an external cohort of patients.

METHODS

We performed a validation study involving 803 MoM hip arthroplasties (323 unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR], 93 bilateral BHR, and 294 unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) performed in 710 patients at 3 European centers. All patients underwent whole-blood metal ion sampling, and were divided into 2 groups: those with ARMD (leading to revision or identified on imaging; n = 75) and those without ARMD (n = 635). Previously devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds (2.15 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral BHR; 5.5 μg/L for the maximum of either cobalt or chromium for bilateral BHR; and 3.57 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) were applied to the validation cohort, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to establish the discriminatory characteristics of each threshold.

RESULTS

The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the ability of each implant-specific threshold to distinguish between patients with and without ARMD were, respectively, 89.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 96.0%), 78.9%, 86.7%, 44.1%, and 96.9% for unilateral BHR; 89.2% (CI = 81.3% to 97.1%), 70.6%, 86.8%, 54.5%, and 93.0% for bilateral BHR; and 76.9% (CI = 63.9% to 90.0%), 65.0%, 85.4%, 24.5%, and 97.1% for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants. Using the implant-specific thresholds, we missed 20 patients with ARMD (2.8% of the patients in this series). We missed more patients with ARMD when we used the fixed thresholds proposed by regulatory authorities: 35 (4.9%) when we used the U.K. threshold of 7 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 0.0003), 21 (3.0%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 3 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 1.0), and 46 (6.5%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 10 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This external multicenter validation study confirmed that patients with blood metal ion levels below new implant-specific thresholds have a low risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty. Using these implant-specific thresholds, we missed fewer patients with ARMD compared with when the thresholds currently proposed by regulatory authorities were used. We therefore recommend using implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds when managing patients who have undergone MoM hip arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.