A new approach to managing patients with problematic metal hip implants: the use of an Internet-enhanced multidisciplinary team meeting: AAOS exhibit selection

A multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel reduces the time to referral and treatment for patients with a brain tumor

Background

Regional collaboration and appropriate referral management are crucial in neuro-oncological care. Lack of electronic access to medical records across health care organizations impedes interhospital consultation and may lead to incomplete and delayed referrals. To improve referral management, we have established a multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel (NOTP) with digital image exchange and determined the effects on lead times, costs, and time investment.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted from February 2019 to March 2020. All newly diagnosed patients referred to Brain Tumor Center Amsterdam were analyzed according to referral pathway: (1) standard referral (SR), (2) NOTP. The primary outcome was lead time, defined as time-to-referral, time-to-treatment, and total time (median days [interquartile range]). Secondary outcomes were costs and time investment.

Results

In total, 225 patients were included, of whom 153 had SR and 72 NOTP referral. Patients discussed in the NOTP were referred more frequently for first neurosurgical consultation (44.7% vs 28.8%) or combined neurological and neurosurgical consultation (12.8% vs 2.5%, P = .002). Time-to-referral was reduced for NOTP referral compared to SR (1 [0.25-4] vs 6 [1.5-10] days, P < .001). Total time decreased from 27 [14-48] days for the standard group to 15 [12-38.25] days for the NOTP group (P = .040). Costs and time investment were comparable for both groups.

Conclusion

Implementation of digital referral to a multidisciplinary NOTP is feasible and leads to more swift patient-tailored referrals at comparable costs and time investment as SR. This quality improvement initiative has the potential to improve collaboration and coordination of multidisciplinary care in the field of neuro-oncology.

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.

Surgical Treatment of Intrapelvic Pseudotumour after Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Case Report and Literature Review

Hip replacement is the surgery of the last century due to its impact on the quality of life. A pseudotumour is a rare complication of hip arthroplasty, and it is related to a metal-bearing surface. Pseudotumour is a challenging scenario for hip surgeons due to poor clinical outcomes. The patient consulted for hip pain and paresthesia in the left lower extremity, and analyses showed that the cause was a sizeable intrapelvic pseudotumour. A multidisciplinary team surgery was planned. At first, an infraumbilical approach was made to resect the intrapelvic-retroperitoneum portion of the pseudotumour. Then, a posterolateral hip approach was performed, to resect the remaining portion of the pseudotumour and revision arthroplasty. At five years of follow-up, there are no clinical or imaging signs of recurrence of the pseudotumour. Treatment evidence is limited to a series of cases and expert opinions; we encourage complete resection and revision arthroplasty.

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.

Five Hundred Fifty-five Retrieved Metal-on-metal Hip Replacements of a Single Design Show a Wide Range of Wear, Surface Features, and Histopathologic Reactions

BACKGROUND

In 2010, a widely used metal-on-metal hip implant design was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer because of higher than anticipated failure rates at 5 years. Although there was a large published range of revision rates, numerous studies had reported a higher risk of revision for excessive wear and associated adverse tissue reactions when compared with other metal-on-metal total hips. The reasons for this were suggested by some to be related to cup design features.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

From retrievals of ASR metal-on-metal implants and tissue samples obtained at revision surgery, we asked the following questions: (1) What were the common and uncommon surface features? (2) What were the common and uncommon linear and volumetric wear characteristics? (3) Were there common taper corrosion characteristics? (4) What aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) features were present in the tissues?

METHODS

Five hundred fifty-five ASRs, including 23 resurfacings, were studied at one academic research center. Features of wear (eg, light and moderate scratching), damage (eg, deposits, gouges), and bone attachment on the porous coating were semiquantitatively ranked from 0 (none) to 3 (> 75%) based on the amount of a feature in each region of interest by the same experienced observer throughout the study. Visible features of head taper corrosion were ranked (Goldberg score) from 1 (none) to 4 (severe) by the same observer using a previously published scoring method. An experienced tribologist measured component wear depth using a coordinate measuring machine and quantified wear volume using previously validated methods. All available tissues were sampled and examined for features of ALVAL and scored from 0 to 10 by a single observer using a method they previously developed and published. A score from 0 to 4 is considered low, 5 to 8 is considered moderate, and 9 or 10 is considered high with regard to the risk of metal hypersensitivity features in the tissues.

RESULTS

The most common bearing surface features were light and moderate scratches and removal or postremoval damage. Discoloration and deposits were commonly observed on femoral heads (55% [305 of 553]) and less commonly on cups (30% [165 of 546]). There was no evidence of impingement or dislocation damage. There was typically a small amount of bone attachment in at least one of eight designated regions of interest (84% [460 of 546]); extensive or no bone attachment was uncommon. Edge wear was highly prevalent. The maximum wear of 469 cups (88%) occurred near the edge, whereas the maximum wear of 508 femoral heads (94%) occurred between the pole and 45° from the pole. The median combined head-cup wear volume was 14 mm (range, 1-636 mm). One hundred sixty-nine pairs (32%) had a combined wear volume of < 10 mm, 42 pairs (8%) had volumetric wear of > 100 mm, and 319 pairs (60%) had wear volume between 10 and 100 mm³. Seventy-four percent of tapers (390 of 530) received a Goldberg score of 4, 22% (116 of 530) a score of 3, < 5% (24 of 530) a score of 2, and none received a score of 1. The most frequent ALVAL score was 5 out of 10 (35 of 144 hips [24%]) and ranged from 2 (one hip) to 10 (nine hips); 92 of 144 (64%) had a moderate score, 17 of 144 (12%) had a high score, and 35 (24%) had a low score.

CONCLUSIONS

Although edge wear was prevalent, in most cases, this was not associated with high wear. The increased diameter and decreased coverage angle of the ASR design may have resulted in the observed high incidence of edge wear while perhaps decreasing the risk for impingement and dislocation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The role of bearing wear in the revisions of metal-on-metal implants is controversial, because it is known that there is a large range of in vivo wear rates even within the same implant type and that patient variability affects local tissue responses to wear debris. The observations from our study of 555 retrieved ASR implant sets indicate that there was a wide range of wear including a subset with very high wear. The results suggested that the failure of the ASR and ASR XL was multifactorial, and the failure of different subgroups such as those with low wear may be the result of mechanisms other than reaction to wear debris.

The East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network: the future of revision arthroplasty?

It really is good to talk.

Scoring the Current Risk Stratification Guidelines in Follow-up Evaluation of Patients After Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Proposal for a Metal-on-Metal Risk Score Supporting Clinical Decision-Making

BACKGROUND

In the follow-up evaluation of patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements, current evidence suggests that orthopaedic surgeons should avoid reliance on any single investigative tool. Current risk stratification guidelines can be difficult to interpret because they do not provide guidance when there are several risk factors in different groups (high and low risk). To improve the clinical utility of risk stratification guidelines, we designed a scoring system to assess the risk of revision.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 1,709 patients (1,912 hips) enrolled in a multicenter follow-up study of a recalled MoM hip replacement. Eleven scoring criteria were determined on the basis of existing follow-up algorithm recommendations and consisted of patient-related factors, symptoms, clinical status, implant type, metal ion levels, and radiographic imaging results. Forward stepwise logistic regression was conducted to determine the minimum set of predictive variables for the risk of revision and to assign variable weights. The MoM risk score for each hip was then created by averaging the weighted values of each predictive variable.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis yielded good discrimination between all revised and unrevised hips, with an area under the curve of 0.82 (p < 0.001). The odds of revision for the group with a high MoM risk score were increased by 5.8-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1 to 11.0) relative to the moderate risk group and by 21.8-fold (95% CI, 9.9 to 48.0) compared with the low risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of MoM hip arthroplasty has been limited since 2010, we continue to be faced with the follow-up and risk assessment of thousands of patients who have not had a revision. As more knowledge about risk stratification is gained, the complexity of the algorithms is expected to increase. We propose the use of the MoM risk score as a tool to aid in the clinical decision-making process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy [Formula: see text]

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.

Lessons learnt from metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties will lead to safer innovation for all medical devices

Metal-on-metal bearings were re-popularised in the late 1990s with the introduction of modern hip resurfacing. Large diameter (LD) metal-on-metal (MoM) hips became more prevalent and have been the least successful group of hip implants ever used. They were rapidly adopted from 2004 until the British Hip Society stopped their use in 2012. Well functioning MoM hip results (including the BHR and Metasul) are hidden in the mire of poor results from the group of all MoM bearings.We have reviewed what happened and we make 3 observations. Firstly, collaboration between surgeons and then between surgeons and other disciplines, first identified and then solved the clinical management problems. Secondly, the problems with MoM hips occurred because hip simulation was inadequate at predicting performance in patients. They gave no indications of the biological effects of wear in the human environment. Lastly, retrieval of failed implants was essential to understanding why failure occurred.These lessons must never be forgotten and must form the basis by which new or altered implants are introduced and how they should be monitored. This will enable safer innovation for patients, surgeons and manufacturers. The problems with MoM hips will not have been in vain.

International metal-on-metal multidisciplinary teams: do we manage patients with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in the same way? An analysis from the International Specialist Centre Collaboration on MOM Hips (ISCCoMH)

AIMS

There are many guidelines that help direct the management of patients with metal-on-metal (MOM) hip arthroplasties. We have undertaken a study to compare the management of patients with MOM hip arthroplasties in different countries.

METHODS

Six international tertiary referral orthopaedic centres were invited to participate by organising a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting, consisting of two or more revision hip arthroplasty surgeons and a musculoskeletal radiologist. A full clinical dataset including history, blood tests and imaging for ten patients was sent to each unit, for discussion and treatment planning. Differences in the interpretation of findings, management decisions and rationale for decisions were compared using quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

Overall agreement between the orthopaedic centres and the recommended treatment plans for the ten patients with MOM hip implants was moderate (kappa = 0.6). Full agreement was seen in a third of cases, however split decisions were also seen in a third of cases. Units differed in their interpretation of the significance of the investigation findings and put varying emphasis on serial changes, in the presence of symptoms.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, the management of raised or rising blood metal ions, cystic pseudotumours and peri-acetabular osteolysis led to inconsistency in the agreement between centres. Coordinated international guidance and MDT panel discussions are recommended to improve consensus in decision making.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

A lack of evidence and the subsequent variation in regulator guidance leads to differences in opinions, the clinical impact of which can be reduced through a multi-disciplinary team approach to managing patients with MOM hip implants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:179-86.

Management of metal-on-metal hip implant patients: Who, when and how to revise?

The debate on how best to manage patients with metal-on-metal (MOM) hip implants continues. With over 1 million patients affected worldwide, the impact is far reaching. The majority of the aggressive failures of MOM hip implants have been dealt with by revision hip surgery, leaving patients with a much more indolent pattern of failure of devices that have been in situ for more than 10 years. The longer-term outcome for such patients remains unknown, and much debate exists on how best to manage these patients. Regulatory guidance is available but remains open to interpretation due to the lack of current evidence and long-term studies. Metal ion thresholds for concern have been suggested at 7 ppb for hip resurfacing arthroplasty and below this level for large diameter total hip arthroplasties. Soft tissue changes including pseudotumours and muscle atrophy have been shown to progress, but this is not consistent. New advanced imaging techniques are helping to diagnose complications with metal hips and the reasons for failure, however these are not widely available. This has led to some centres to tackle difficult cases through multidisciplinary collaboration, for both surgical management decisions and also follow-up decisions. We summarise current evidence and consider who is at risk, when revision should be undertaken and how patients should be managed.

The Management of the Symptomatic Patient With a Metal-on-Metal Hip Prosthesis

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants have gained popularity due to their greater stability and reduction in implant failure compare to metal-on-polyethylene prostheses. However, as well as carrying general risks of hip implantation, risks specifically associated with MoM implants have been well documented in recent years. Conditions such as pseudotumours or aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions are specific to MoM hip implants. In this review we discuss the typical patient presentation, the investigations that should be performed, the typical findings on various imaging modalities, and the treatment options of symptomatic patients with MoM hip arthroplasties.

Early Lessons From a Worldwide, Multicenter, Followup Study of the Recalled Articular Surface Replacement Hip System

BACKGROUND

Adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) around hip arthroplasties are an important reason for failure of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants. Little is known about capsular dehiscence patterns as ALTRs decompress from the hip into the surrounding tissue planes; these patterns may also influence the onset and severity of patient symptoms.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Through a multicenter study approach, we asked: (1) Is ALTR location related to the surgical approach used for arthroplasty in patients who underwent hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or THA) with a single, recalled hip arthroplasty system? (2) Do ALTR severity and location affect patient-reported outcomes in these patients? (3) Is ALTR severity different between patients who received the resurfacing version of this component (Articular Surface Replacement [ASR]) and those who received the THA implant in this system (ASR XL)?

METHODS

In a multicenter prospective study of patients who had undergone surgery with use of the ASR and ASR XL hip system (DePuy Orthopaedics, Warsaw, IN, USA), 288 patients (333 hips) from two centers had a metal artifact reduction sequence MRI of the hip performed at a mean time of 6 years postsurgery. Procedures included 166 hips (50%) with ASR resurfacing and 167 hips (50%) with ASR XL THA performed between 2004 and 2010. One hundred twenty-nine hips (39%) had been operated on using a direct lateral approach and 204 using a posterior approach (61%). The EQ-5D, Harris hip score, UCLA activity score, and visual analog scale pain score were obtained for each patient. ALTRs were classified using the Anderson ALTR grading system, and the location, synovial thickness, and diameter of the ATLRs were assessed. The relationship between ALTR location and surgical approach as well as for ALTR severity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify predictors for moderate-to-severe ALTRs.

RESULTS

Moderate or severe ALTRs were identified in 79 hips (24%); 41 of these hips had been operated on using the direct lateral approach and 38 using the posterior approach. In patients in whom the lateral approach was used, 83% had an anterior ALTR. Similarly, 71% of patients in the posterior approach group had posterior ALTRs. There were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures between patients with moderate-to-severe ALTRs and those with no ALTR findings on MRI (p > 0.09). Use of ASR XL was an independent risk factor for moderate-to-severe ALTRs (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.5 p = 0.004) and patients with ASR XL also had a thicker synovium (median ASR XL = 3.6 mm [1.2-10.6 mm], median ASR = 2.6 mm [1.2-10.7 mm], p < 0.001) and larger maximal ALTR diameter (median ASR XL = 47.6 mm [14-109.70 mm], median ASR = 38.4 [17.2-118.0 mm], p = 0.02) than patients treated with ASR.

CONCLUSIONS

The location of ALTRs can be predicted based on the previous surgical approach to the hip. Patients with ASR XL are more likely to develop moderate-to-severe ALTRs compared with ASR patients. An extensive range of patient-reported outcome measures may not identify all patients with ALTRs further supporting the use of MRI as a screening measure for ALTRs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.