Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes

No Difference in Revision Rates and High Survival Rates in Large-head Metal-on-metal THA Versus Metal-on-polyethylene THA: Long-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pseudotumor formation is a well-known complication in metal-on-metal (MoM) THA. Pseudotumors combined with elevated serum ion levels and complaints from patients can lead to high revision rates. Long-term (> 10 years) results obtained from randomized trials comparing large-head MoM THA and conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA are lacking regarding revision and survival rates, pseudotumor formation, functional outcomes, and serum ion levels.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

At 10 years of follow-up, (1) what is the difference in survival and revision rates between large-head (38 to 60 mm) MoM THA and conventional 28-mm MoP THA? (2) What is the difference in pseudotumor formation between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (3) Is there a difference in functional outcome between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (4) What is the difference in serum ion levels between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA?

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2008, 104 patients were randomized to receive either cementless MoM THA (50 patients) or cementless MoP THA (54 patients). In all, 78% (81 of 104) of patients completed the 10-year postoperative follow-up: 36 patients with MoM THA (72%; six patients lost to follow-up) and 45 with MoP THA (83%; four lost to follow-up). In the MoM group, 47% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean ± SD age of 60 ± 5 years. In the MoP group, 38% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean age of 61 ± 5 years. All baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. At 10 years of follow-up, all patient records were screened for revision surgery or complications, and the primary endpoint was survivorship free from revision for any cause at the 10-year follow-up interval, which we analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. All patients had a CT scan to determine the pseudotumor classification, which was reviewed by an independent radiologist. Functional outcome was measured using the patient-reported Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score; the latter was assessed by a blinded nurse practitioner. Finally, serum ion cobalt and chrome concentrations were measured at 10 years postoperatively. Because the a priori sample size calculation for this randomized controlled trial was based on a different endpoint, a post hoc power analysis was performed for this long-term follow-up study, with survival as the primary outcome. It showed that considering the number of included patients, this study would have sufficient power (one-sided testing, alpha 0.05, power 80%) to discern a difference of 20% in the survival rate between the MoP and MoM groups (95% versus 75%).

RESULTS

With the numbers available, there was no difference in survivorship free from revision for any cause between the MoP group and MoM group at 10 years (95% [95% CI 85% to 98%] versus 92% [95% CI 82% to 98%]; p = 0.6). A higher percentage of patients in the MoM group had pseudotumors on CT than those in the MoP group did, but pseudotumors were observed in both groups (56% [20 of 36] in the MoM group versus 22% [10 of 45] in the MoP group, relative risk 1.8 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.002). A higher proportion of elevated cobalt and chrome levels was found in the MoM group (19% and 14%, respectively) than in the MoP group (0% for both cobalt and chrome) (cobalt: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.5]; p = 0.002; chrome: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.01). In 25% of the patients with pseudotumors (5 of 20 patients), there were elevated serum cobalt levels. None of the 23 patients without pseudotumors had elevated cobalt levels (RR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.01). There was no difference in functional outcome between study groups, nor a difference between patients with a pseudotumor and those without.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the survival of patients with large-head MoM THA was high and comparable to that of those with MoP THA, which contrasts with the high revision rates reported by others. Although some patients with MoP THAs experienced pseudotumors, the risk of a pseudotumor was much greater in MoM hips, and serum ion levels were higher in patients who received an MoM THA. For these reasons and unknown future complications, continued surveillance of patients with MoM THAs seems important.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

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.

Examining the "revisability" benefit of hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) that is typically reserved for young active patients because it preserves bone. However, the benefits of HRA only hold true if conversion THA after failed HRA provides acceptable outcomes.

AIM

To compare patient reported outcomes for conversion THA after HRA failure to primary THA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 36 patients (37 hips) that underwent conversion THA for failed HRA between October 2006 and May 2019 by a single surgeon was performed. Patient reported outcomes [modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score] were obtained via an email-based responder-anonymous survey. Outcomes were compared to normative data of a primary THA cohort with similar demographics. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing outcomes of conversion THA for adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) vs all other causes for failure.

RESULTS

The study group had a lower mHHS than the control group (81.7 ± 13.8 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P < 0.01); however, both groups had similar UCLA activity levels (7.5 ± 2.3 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P = 0.51). Patients that underwent conversion for non-ATLR causes had similar mHHS (85.2 ± 11.5 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P = 0.11) and higher UCLA activity levels (8.5 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P < 0.01) compared to the control group. Patients that underwent conversion for ATLR had worse mHHS (77.1 ± 14.5 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P < 0.01) and UCLA activity levels (6.1 ± 2.3 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P = 0.05) when compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Patient outcomes equivalent to primary THA can be achieved following HRA conversion to THA. However, inferior outcomes were demonstrated for ALTR-related HRA failure. Patient selection and perhaps further studies examining alternative HRA bearing surfaces should be considered.

Birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review of outcomes at minimum 10-years follow-up

Although controversy surrounding the use of metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasty implants continues to exist, satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes have been reported following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) at long-term follow-up, leading to an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of 13A. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the functional outcomes, radiological outcomes and revision rates following BHR at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. Using the PRISMA guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases. Only studies reporting on outcomes of BHR with a minimum of 10 years' follow-up were considered for inclusion. A total of 12 studies including 7132 hips (64.8% males), with mean follow-up of 11.5 years (10-15.3), met our inclusion criteria. Of included patients, 94.3% of patient underwent BHR for osteoarthritis at a mean age was 52.0 years (48-52). At final follow-up, 96% of patients reported being satisfied with their BHR, with mean Harris Hip Scores of 93.6 and Oxford Hip Scores of 16.5. Rates of radiological femoral neck narrowing of greater than 10% and non-progressive radiological loosening were reported as 2.0% and 3.8% respectively. At final follow-up, the overall revision rate was 4.9% (334/7132), deep infection rate was 0.4%, metal allergy/insensitivity rate was 1.6%, metal reaction rate was 0.3%, rate of peri-prosthetic fracture was 0.9% and aseptic loosening rates were 1.6%. This systematic review demonstrates that BHR results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, acceptable implant survivorship, low complication rates and modest surgical revision rates in the long-term at minimum 10-year follow-up.

Noninfectious tissue interactions at periprosthetic interfaces

The success of hip arthroplasty is based on modern materials in addition to the continuous development of surgical techniques and clinical experience gained over six decades. The biocompatible implant materials used in hip arthroplasty can be textured or coated with biomimetic surfaces to ensure durable component ingrowth and moderate host response. Material integrity plays a critical role in the durability of the stable interface between implant components and periprosthetic tissues. Inflammation at the interfaces due to the release of degradation products from the implant materials is one of the causes of hip arthroplasty failure. This review summarizes the implant materials currently used in hip arthroplasty, their preclinical testing and the postoperative neogenesis of periprosthetic tissues, and the interactions of periprosthetic bone and the implant materials at the periprosthetic interfaces.

A Rare Case of Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in a Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement

Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris (ARMD) is one of the most frequent complications after Total Hip Replacement (THR) and often a cause of surgical revision. This is true especially for implants with Metal-on-Metal (MoM) and Large Diameter Heads (LDHs), which are frequently used to improve stability and reduce the risk of dislocation. However, ARMD is not exclusive to MoM replacement, as it can also occur in other implants such Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC), Metal-on-Polyethylene (MoP), and Ceramic-on-Polyethylene (CoP). In these non-MoM implants, ARMD is not caused by the tribo-corrosion between bearing surfaces but, rather, by the fretting at the interface between neck and stem of dissimilar metals. A case of a severe ARMD that happened to a 73-year-old female patient with CoC bearing THR at the right hip is presented in this case report. In this case, the ARMD was misdiagnosed for over a year, resulting in the development of a massive pseudotumor. The treatment of choice was a two-stage revision with the implant of a hip megaprosthesis. After more than 2 years of follow-up, complete recovery of hip Range of Motion (ROM) and normalization of chromium and cobalt levels in blood and urine were achieved. Despite the relatively short follow-up period, this can be considered a successful treatment of a major and misdiagnosed ARMD in a non-MoM hip replacement.

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.

Clinical outcomes and dislocation rates after hip reconstruction using the Bioball system

INTRODUCTION

Instability accounts for 1/3 of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) performed in the UK. Removal of well-fixed femoral stems in rTHA is challenging with a risk of blood loss and iatrogenic damage to the femur. The Bioball universal adaptor (BUA), a modular head neck extension adaptor, provides a mechanism for optimisation of femoral offset, leg length and femoral anteversion. This can avoid the need for femoral stem revision in selected cases.The aim of this study is to present the clinical results and rate of instability following revision with this BUA at a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A review of our prospectively collected database was performed. All patients treated with the Bioball device were included. Clinical and radiologic review were performed pre- and post-surgery. Specific enquiry for instability was made. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQol (EQ-5D) score and WOMAC scores were calculated pre-and post-operatively. Complications were recorded.

RESULTS

32 rTHA procedures were performed using the Bioball device between 2013 and 2016. 4 patients did not wish to complete post-operative questionnaires. 2 patients (2/28, 7%) complained of recurrent dislocations following their rTHA procedure. 1 patient complained of instability but no dislocation. The median pre-operative EQ-5D was 0.195 (range -0.07-0.85), OHS was 20 (range 5-43) and WOMAC was 29.8 (range 15.5-52.3). The median EQ-5D was 0.85 (range 0.59-1), OHS was 39 (range 21-48) and WOMAC was 91.1 (range 44.5-99.2) at final follow-up. There were significant improvements in the EQ-5D (p = 0.0009), OHS (p = 0.0004) and WOMAC (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The BUA is associated with significant functional improvement and relatively low dislocation rates in revision THA. It is a viable option for use in the revision setting.

Revision of a dual-modular stem in patients with adverse tissue reaction

BACKGROUND

Dual-modular femoral components with exchangeable cobalt-chrome neck segments have had higher than expected failure rates due to corrosion and adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR). Complications, survival rates and early clinical outcomes of revision surgery for the treatment of corrosion and ALTR as a result of these implants are underreported.

METHODS

We identified 44 cases of revision THA for corrosion and ALTR resulting from the same dual modular stem. All revision procedures were performed using a modular tapered fluted titanium stem, ceramic heads and highly cross-linked polyethylene.

RESULTS

Complications included: dislocation, infection, reoperation, and chronic pain. Mean Harris Hip Score was 84 following revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision surgery for ALTR related to this prosthesis should be aware of the risk of postoperative dislocation and other complications and the potential long-term risk of some chronic pain.

Descriptive analysis of postmarket surveillance data for hip implants

Purpose

Recent safety issues involving medical devices have highlighted the need for better postmarket surveillance (PMS) evaluation. This article aims to describe and to assess the quality of the PMS data for a medical device and, finally, to provide recommendations to improve the data gathering process.

Methods

A descriptive analysis of medical device reports (MDRs) on the use of MRA, a specific type of hip implant replacement submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2017. The number of reports was described as the number of MDRs per unique MDR number and stratified by different variables. The quality was assessed by the level of completeness of the collected PMS data.

Results

The total number of reports related to MRA was 2377, and the number of MDRs per year ranged between 84 in 2009 and 452 in 2017. Most of the reports were reported by manufacturer Depuy Johnson & Johnson and were reported by a physician. In 44.9% of the reports, the device problem was reported as “Unknown.” When the device problem was known, in the majority of cases, it was related to an implant fracture. The quality of the collected data was assessed as low due to missing information.

Conclusion

The underlying data should meet high quality standards to generate more evidence and to ensure a timely signal generation. This case study shows that the completeness and quality of the MDRs can be improved. The authors propose the development of tools to ensure a more dynamic complaint data collection to contribute to this enhancement.

Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision-Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Revision of monoblock metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with high complication rates. Limited revision by conversion to a dual mobility (DM) without acetabular component extraction may mitigate these complications. However, the concern for polyethylene wear and osteolysis remains unsettled. This study investigates the results of DM conversion of monoblock MoM THA compared to formal acetabular revision.

METHODS

One hundred forty-three revisions of monoblock MoM THA were reviewed. Twenty-nine were revisions to a DM construct, and 114 were complete revisions of the acetabular component. Mean patient age was 61, 54% were women. Components used, acetabular cup position, radiographic outcomes, serum metal ion levels, and HOOS Jr clinical outcome scores were investigated.

RESULTS

At 3.9 years of follow-up (range 2-5), there were 2 revisions (6.9%) in the DM cohort, 1 for instability and another for periprosthetic fracture. Among the formal acetabular revision group there was a 20% major complication rate (23/114) and 16% underwent revision surgery (18/114) for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), acetabular fracture (3%), or delayed wound healing (6%). In the DM cohort, there were no radiographic signs of aseptic loosening, component migration, or polyethylene wear. One DM patient had a small posterior metadiaphyseal femur lesion that will require close monitoring. There were no other radiographic signs of osteolysis. There were no clinically significant elevations of serum metal ion levels. HOOS Jr scores were favorable.

CONCLUSION

Limited revision with conversion to DM is a viable treatment option for failed monoblock MoM THA with lower complication rates than formal revision. Limited revision to DM appears to be a safe option for revision of monoblock MoM THA with a cup in good position and an internal geometry free of sharp edges or articular surface damage. Longer follow-up is needed to demonstrate any potential wear implications of these articulations.

Follow-up of Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements at a Large District Hospital and the Implementation of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Guidelines: A Review of 297 Patients

Background

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance for patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements was provided in 2012 and updated in 2017 to assist in the early detection of soft-tissue reactions due to metal wear debris. A large number of MoM hip replacements were undertaken at our hospital trust. A program of recall for all patients with MoM hip replacements was undertaken and MHRA guidelines were implemented. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the revised MHRA guidelines in the detection of early adverse reactions to metal debris and to re-evaluate the indications for metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging (MARS-MRI) and revision surgery.

Methods

Identification and recall of all patients with MoM hip replacements from 2001 were conducted by using theatre logs, patient records, clinical coding information, and consultant logbooks. Two senior arthroplasty consultants reviewed X-rays and patient records. Postal questionnaires were forwarded to patients, together with requests for general practitioners to complete cobalt and chromium blood tests. The two consultant-led review of MOM replacements was undertaken with further radiological investigations (X-rays, MARS-MRI) performed according to the 2017 guidance with support of consultant radiologists.

Results

Of 674 identified patients, 297 were available for review: 26 patients did not have MoM implants, 36 were untraceable, 59 refused follow-up, 87 moved out of area, 147 had died, and 22 already had revision. Of 297 patients, 126 were women and 171 were men; age range was 39 to 95 years (mean age, 69 years); 126 had resurfacing and 171 had MoM replacements. Twenty-six patients had elevated metal ions. Thirty-three patients underwent MARS-MRI: MARS-MRI results were positive in 17 and negative in 16. Of 17 patients with positive MARS-MRI, 10 patients were asymptomatic and seven were waiting revision.

Conclusions

Positive MARS-MRI can often occur in the absence of elevated metal ion levels; elevated blood metal ion levels do not mean MARS-MRI will be positive. All patients with MoM replacements were at risk. It is imperative to assess patients regularly for symptoms that may raise clinical suspicion and maintain a low threshold to performing MARS-MRI.

Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components

BACKGROUND

Retention of the acetabular component is an option during conversion from hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of conversion of the femoral resurfacing component with retained acetabular components (RAC) and use of dual-mobility femoral heads to outcomes of patients treated with both component (BC) revisions.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the clinical outcomes of HRA to THA conversions performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-one conversions were included (27 RAC and 44 BC). Average age at time of conversion was 54.4 years (range, 30-68 years). Median time to conversion was 5.14 (2.77-7.41) years and median follow-up post-conversion was 1.7 (0.33-4.0) years. There were no significant differences in indications for conversion between the 2 groups with the majority performed for complications related to elevated metal ions and aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores improved from pre-conversion to post-conversion in both cohorts (P < .01). There were no significant differences in pre-conversion and post-conversion metal ion levels between the RAC and BC groups. Serum metal ion levels decreased significantly in both cohorts (P < .01). There were 6 additional revisions in the cohort (4 in BC, 2 in RAC) at a median 2.94 (1.99-3.85) years post-conversion. Two RAC patients had intraprosthetic dislocations with extensive polyethylene wear requiring acetabular revision at median 3.92 (3.85-3.98) years post-conversion. Overall, there were a higher number of complications in the BC group related to acetabular fracture, failure of osseointegration, and periprosthetic joint infection; however, this did not reach statistical significance (P = .27).

CONCLUSION

Salvage of an appropriately positioned, well-fixed HRA acetabular component is a reasonable option in the setting of conversion to THA using dual-mobility components. This technique avoids the morbidity of acetabular revision and was associated with a decrease in metal ion levels and improvements in short-term functional outcomes comparable to a BC revision.

Revision of Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: Midterm Outcomes of 203 Consecutive Cases

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MoM) revisions have shown high rates of complications from aseptic loosening, deep infection, and dislocation. The purpose of this study is to report on outcomes and complications of a large consecutive series of patients who were revised for failed MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

We evaluated 188 patients (203 hips) who underwent revisions of failed MoM THA. Mean age at the revision was 60 years old. Gender was female in 112 hips (55%) and male in 91 hips (45%). Mean interval to failure after primary THA was 4.9 years (range, 0-18 years). The acetabular component was revised in 183 cases (92%). Clinical outcomes assessed included pain score and Harris hip score.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up from revision was 4.2 years. Harris hip score improved from 53.6 pre-revision to 73.5 at most recent follow-up (P < .001). Pain level significantly improved from 17.2 pre-revision to 32.8 post-revision (P < .001). Reoperations occurred in 28 (14%) hips. Re-revision was required in 16 hips (7.9%). The most common reasons for re-revision were aseptic loosening (5), dislocation (3), infection (2), and iliopsoas tendonitis (2). Re-revision was significantly higher in cases of pseudotumor. There was no difference in survival with ultraporous cups. Three hips required re-revision to custom triflange components. All-cause survival was 90.5% at 4.2 years. Metal ion levels significantly declined after revision.

CONCLUSION

Revisions of failed MoM THA showed improvements in clinical outcomes, but present significant surgical challenges and complications especially in cases with soft tissue damage and pseudotumor.

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.

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.

Introduction of New Technologies in Orthopaedic Surgery

The introduction of new devices, biologics, and combination products to the orthopaedic marketplace is increasing rapidly. The majority of these new technologies obtain clearance to market by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate (previously approved device) according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) process. Surgeons play a critical role in the introduction of new technologies to patients and must take a leadership role in promoting safe, efficacious, appropriate, and cost-effective care, especially for operative procedures. Surgeons should monitor and document their patients' clinical outcomes and adverse events when using new technology, to ensure that the new technology is performing as desired.

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.

Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision).

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD?

METHODS

This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

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.

Salvage of a monoblock metal-on-metal cup using a dual mobility liner: a two-year MRI follow-up study

PURPOSE

Revision of failed modular metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-THA) can be technically difficult. A dual mobility liner can help to salvage a well-fixed acetabular component. The present paper reports the clinical and radiographic outcome of revision of failed Birmingham modular MoM-THA using a dual mobility liner.

METHODS

The present study reports on ten patients (3 female and 7 male) with 11 revision THAs. Patients underwent revision an average of 51 months (range 40-73 months) after index procedure. Mean follow-up after the revision was 31 months (range 24-37 months) and all patients underwent an MRI with metal artifact reduction software (MARS) at least two years after revision to assess for local polyethylene wear and osteolysis.

RESULTS

The Harris Hip score improved from 92.2 (range 63.0-100.0) to 100.0 (p = 0.072). One patient had a one-time dislocation within seven days of surgery. No patient required additional surgeries. Radiographs showed no signs of component loosening and osteolysis and MRI imaging revealed no evidence of polyethylene wear or osteolysis.

CONCLUSION

A dual mobility liner in an existing Birmingham cup can provide excellent clinical and radiological short-term results without MRI evidence of increased polyethylene wear. Post-operative hip precautions should be enforced.

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

Aims

To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision.

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression modelling.

Results

Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%). The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per kg/m² increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR 2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings (SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR 2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive of re-revision when the missing data were imputed.

Conclusion

The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified by the surgeon, suggesting that rates of failure following ARMD revision may be reduced further.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1020–7.

The Utility of Metal Ion Trends in Predicting Revision in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data examining metal ion levels over time.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 59 patients (69 hips) with an articular surface replacement total hip arthroplasty. We reviewed prerevision cobalt and chromium concentrations over time.

RESULTS

Seventy-one percent of patients who were revised and had multiple ion measurements (12/17) demonstrated increasing cobalt ion levels or elevated ion levels over time. There was a trend toward an elevated risk of revision for increasing cobalt and chromium levels starting at 12 and 4 ppb, respectively; this was significant for chromium levels above 7 ppb (hazard ratio 22.35, P = .001). Similarly, there was a trend toward an elevated risk of pseudotumor formation for increasing cobalt and chromium levels starting at 5 and 2.5 ppb, respectively; this was significant for cobalt levels above 7 ppb (hazard ratio 6.88, P = .027).

CONCLUSION

In this paper, cobalt and chromium levels levels above 5 and 2.5 ppb started to demonstrate an increased risk of ARMD, and should be considered as a lower cutoff for discussion with patients about the potential for future revision.

Risk factors for failure of the 36 mm metal-on-metal Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty system: a retrospective single-centre cohort study

Aims

To determine ten-year failure rates following 36 mm metal-on-metal (MoM) Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty (THA), and identify predictors of failure.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively assessed a single-centre cohort of 569 primary 36 mm MoM Pinnacle THAs (all Corail stems) followed up since 2012 according to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency recommendations. All-cause failure rates (all-cause revision, and non-revised cross-sectional imaging failures) were calculated, with predictors for failure identified using multivariable Cox regression.

Results

Failure occurred in 97 hips (17.0%). The ten-year cumulative failure rate was 27.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 21.6 to 33.7). Primary implantation from 2006 onwards (hazard ratio (HR) 4.30; 95% CI 1.82 to 10.1; p = 0.001) and bilateral MoM hip arthroplasty (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; p = 0.037) predicted failure. The effect of implantation year on failure varied over time. From four years onwards following surgery, hips implanted since 2006 had significantly higher failure rates (eight years 28.3%; 95% CI 23.1 to 34.5) compared with hips implanted before 2006 (eight years 6.3%; 95% CI 2.4 to 15.8) (HR 15.2; 95% CI 2.11 to 110.4; p = 0.007).

Conclusion

We observed that 36 mm MoM Pinnacle THAs have an unacceptably high ten-year failure rate, especially if implanted from 2006 onwards or in bilateral MoM hip patients. Our findings regarding implantation year and failure support recent concerns about the device manufacturing process. We recommend all patients undergoing implantation since 2006 and those with bilateral MoM hips undergo regular investigation, regardless of symptoms.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:592–600.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Revision of Metal-on-Metal Total Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Failure of metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) bearings is often accompanied by an aggressive local reaction associated with destruction of bone, muscle, and other soft tissues around the hip. Little is known about whether patient-reported physical and mental function following revision THA in MOM patients is compromised by this soft tissue damage, and whether revision of MOM THA is comparable with revision of hard-on-soft bearings such as metal-on-polyethylene (MOP).

METHODS

We identified 75 first-time MOM THA revisions and compared them with 104 first-time MOP revisions. Using prospective patient-reported measures via the Veterans RAND-12, we compared Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score function at preoperative baseline and postoperative follow-up between revision MOM THA and revision MOP THA.

RESULTS

Physical Component Score did not vary between the groups preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Mental Component Score preoperatively and 1 and 3 months postoperatively were lower in patients in the MOM cohort compared with patients with MOP revisions (baseline: 43.7 vs 51.3, P < .001; 1 month: 44.9 vs 53.3, P < .001; 3 months: 46.0 vs 52.3, P = .016). However, by 1 year, MCS scores were not significantly different between the revision cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Postrevision physical function in revised MOM THA patients does not differ significantly from the outcomes of revised MOP THA. Mental function is markedly lower in MOM patients at baseline and early in the postoperative period, but does not differ from MOP patients at 1 year after revision. This information should be useful to surgeons and physicians facing MOM THA revision.

Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision

BACKGROUND

High short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes?

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7-15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures.

RESULTS

Overall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%-74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%-76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%-85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%-81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2-46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2-7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1-29; p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Can blood metal ion levels be used to identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacings who are at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris?

AIMS

We investigated whether blood metal ion levels could effectively identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants who have adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Metal ion levels in whole blood were measured in 185 patients with bilateral BHRs. Patients were divided into those with ARMD who either had undergone a revision for ARMD or had ARMD on imaging (n = 30), and those without ARMD (n = 155). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal thresholds of blood metal ion levels for identifying patients with ARMD.

RESULTS

The maximum level of cobalt or chromium ions in the blood was the parameter which produced the highest area under the curve (91.0%). The optimal threshold for distinguishing between patients with and without ARMD was 5.5 µg/l (83.3% sensitivity, 88.4% specificity, 58.1% positive and 96.5% negative predictive values). Similar results were obtained in a subgroup of 111 patients who all underwent cross-sectional imaging. Between 3.2% and 4.3% of patients with ARMD were missed if United Kingdom (7 µg/l) and United States (10 µg/l) authority thresholds were used respectively, compared with 2.7% if our implant specific threshold was used, though these differences did not reach statistical significance (p ≥ 0.248).

CONCLUSION

Patients with bilateral BHRs who have blood metal ion levels below our implant specific threshold were at low-risk of having ARMD. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1455-62.

Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup

Despite the initial promise of metal-on-metal (MoM) implants as the ideal bearing surface for hip replacements and resurfacings, high short term failure rates due to an adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of MoM implants used in the modern era. With over one million patients worldwide having undergone hip operations utilizing a MoM bearing surface, the long term outcomes for such patients remains unknown, and there is much debate as to the most effective management of these patients. Although several regulatory bodies have released guidelines on the management of patients with MoM hips, these recommendations remain open to interpretation, and the most effective management for these patients remains unclear. The aim of this review is to compare the current guidelines for managing patients with MoM hips and also to discuss established ARMD risk factors, evidence regarding the optimum management for patients with MoM hips, and the indications for revision surgery. Furthermore, although specialized laboratory tests and imaging can be used to facilitate clinical decision making, over-reliance on any single tool should be avoided in the decision making process, and surgeons should carefully consider all findings when determining the most appropriate course of action.

Adverse reactions to metal debris occur with all types of hip replacement not just metal-on-metal hips: a retrospective observational study of 3340 revisions for adverse reactions to metal debris from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

BACKGROUND

Adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have resulted in the high short-term failure rates observed with metal-on-metal hip replacements. ARMD has recently been reported in non-metal-on-metal total hip replacements (non-MoM THRs) in a number of small cohort studies. However the true magnitude of this complication in non-MoM THRs remains unknown. We used a nationwide database to determine the risk of ARMD revision in all non-MoM THRs, and compared patient and surgical factors associated with ARMD revision between non-MoM and MoM hips.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary hip replacements undergoing revision surgery for ARMD were included (n = 3,340). ARMD revision risk in non-MoM THRs was compared between different commonly implanted bearing surfaces and femoral head sizes (Chi-squared test). Differences in patient and surgical factors between non-MoM hips and MoM hips revised for ARMD were also analysed (Chi-squared test and unpaired t-test).

RESULTS

Of all ARMD revisions, 7.5% (n = 249) had non-MoM bearing surfaces. The relative risk of ARMD revision was 2.35 times (95% CI 1.76-3.11) higher in ceramic-on-ceramic bearings compared with hard-on-soft bearings (0.055 vs. 0.024%; p < 0.001), and 2.80 times (95% CI 1.74-4.36) higher in 36 mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings compared to 28 mm and 32 mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings (0.058 vs. 0.021%; p < 0.001). ARMD revisions were performed earlier in non-MoM hips compared to MoM hips (mean 3.6-years vs. 5.6-years; p < 0.0001). Non-MoM hips had more abnormal findings at revision (63.1 vs. 35.7%; p < 0.001), and more intra-operative adverse events (6.4 vs. 1.6%; p < 0.001) compared to MoM hips.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall risk of ARMD revision surgery in non-MoM THRs appears low, this risk is increasing, and is significantly higher in ceramic-on-ceramic THRs and 36 mm metal-on-polyethylene THRs. ARMD may therefore represent a significant clinical problem in non-MoM THRs.

Preoperative Risk Factors Associated With Poor Outcomes of Revision Surgery for "Pseudotumors" in Patients With Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision surgery of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adverse tissue reaction (pseudotumor) can be challenging as a consequence of soft tissue and muscle necrosis. The aims of this study were to (1) report the revision outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for failed MoM hip arthroplasty due to symptomatic pseudotumor and (2) identify preoperative risk factors associated with revision outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2013, a total of 102 consecutive large head MoM hip arthroplasties in 97 patients (male: 62, female: 35), who underwent revision surgery were identified from the database of a multidisciplinary referral center.

RESULTS

At minimum follow-up of 2 years (range: 26-52 months), at least one complication had occurred in 14 of 102 revisions (14%). Prerevision radiographic loosening (P = .01), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of solid lesions with abductor deficiency on MRI (P < .001), and intraoperative grading of adverse tissue reactions (P = .05) were correlated with post-revision complications. The reoperation rate of revised MoM THA was 7% (7 of 102 hips). Implant survivorship was 88% at 3 years. Metal ion levels declined in most patients after removal of MoM articulation.

CONCLUSION

Revision outcomes of revision surgery for failed MoM THA due to symptomatic pseudotumor demonstrated 14% complication rate and 7% re-revision rate at 30-month follow-up. Our study identified prerevision radiographic loosening, solid lesions/abductor deficiency on MRI, and high grade intraoperative tissue damage as risk factors associated with poorer revision outcomes. This provides clinically useful information for preoperative planning and perioperative counseling of MoM THA patients undergoing revision surgery.

What is the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients?

PURPOSE

We assessed the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs), and factors associated with future revision.

METHODS

In 2007-2008, we identified 25 MoMHRs (21 patients; mean age 59.9 years; 76% female) with asymptomatic pseudotumours. All patients underwent identical initial assessment (ultrasound, blood metal ions, radiographs, Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) and were considered asymptomatic because they denied experiencing hip symptoms, were satisfied with their MoMHR surgery, and had good or excellent OHSs (≥34). In 2012-2013, repeat assessments were performed in all non-revised patients.

RESULTS

Revision for pseudotumour was performed/recommended in 15 MoMHRs (60%) at a mean 2.7 years (range 0.4-6.4 years) from initial assessment, with 14 developing symptoms before revision. Non-revised MoMHRs (n = 10) underwent repeat ultrasound at a mean 5.1 years (range 4.0-6.5 years) later, with no changes in pseudotumour volume (p = 0.956) or OHS (p = 0.065) between assessments. High blood cobalt (p = 0.0048) and chromium (p = 0.0162), large pseudotumours (p = 0.0458), low OHS (p = 0.0183), and bilateral MoMHRs (p = 0.049) predicted future revision. Patients with blood metal ions above established unilateral/bilateral thresholds and/or initial pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 had an 86.7% sensitivity, 70.0% specificity, 81.2% positive predictive value, and 77.8% negative predictive value for future revision.

CONCLUSIONS

MoMHR patients with initially asymptomatic pseudotumours often become symptomatic and require revision. Patients with high blood metal ions and/or pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 should remain under annual surveillance or be considered for revision (especially in patients also having lower initial OHSs, bilateral MoMHRs, and/or those becoming symptomatic). Less regular surveillance of patients outside these parameters appears acceptable.

Factors associated with symptomatic pseudotumors following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

Background

Pseudotumors associated with metal-on-metal hips can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics of pseudotumors associated with pain.

Methods

A total of 239 large-diameter, metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (THAs) were performed in 222 patients. Screening for pseudotumors was performed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in all patients who underwent metal-on-metal THA, and 57 patients with 62 affected hips showed pseudotumors. There were 45 women with 49 hips and 12 men with 13 hips affected, with a mean age of 64 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 23.9 kg/m². Sixteen hips had symptomatic pseudotumors with pain, and 46 hips were asymptomatic. Pseudotumor size was determined. The anatomical position of pseudotumors was divided into anterior position and posterolateral position. Types of pseudotumors were divided into two types: cystic type; and mixed solid cystic and solid type without a cystic component. The follow-up study of pseudotumors was determined using MRI in 33 patients. The serum cobalt and chromium ion levels were measured in 38 patients after unilateral THA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed comparing symptomatic and asymptomatic patients to identify the characteristics of symptomatic pseudotumors.

Results

The mean BMI was 25.4 kg/m² in symptomatic patients and 23.4 kg/m² in asymptomatic patients; a higher BMI was associated with symptoms (P = 0.036). Symptomatic pseudotumors were significantly larger (three-fold) than asymptomatic pseudotumors (1812 mm² vs 642 mm², P = 0.003). Pseudotumors located in the anterior position were associated with symptoms (P = 0.032), and mixed solid cystic and solid type pseudotumors were associated with symptoms (P = 0.007). A multivariate analysis showed significant differences only in size (R² = 0.298, P = 0.031). No asymptomatic patients with pseudotumors became symptomatic during the follow-up period of MRI evaluation.

Conclusion

Larger size was a significant factor for pain on multivariate analysis.

Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation

The potential advantages of contemporary MoM THA implants include less volumetric wear with subsequent reduction of polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis and greater component stability with use of large-diameter femoral heads. However, there have been concerns regarding significantly elevated revision rates in MoM THA due to MoM-related complications such as adverse local tissue reaction (pseudotumour) formation. The increased failure rate in MoM hip arthroplasty is associated with the generation of biologically active, nanometer sized metal particles from the MoM bearing surfaces and taper junctions, which result in the development of a localized, adverse periprosthetic soft tissue response. The focus of this article is to provide an update on (1) implant, surgical and patient factors associated with adverse local tissue reactions (pseudotumours) and (2) the clinical systematic evaluation and management of patients with MoM hip arthroplasty based on the currently available evidence. There should be a low threshold to conduct a systematic clinical evaluation of patients with MoM hip arthroplasty as early recognition and diagnosis will allow the initiation of prompt and appropriate treatment. As a symptomatic MoM total hip arthroplasty may have intrinsic and extrinsic causes, patients should be evaluated systematically, utilizing risk stratification algorithms. Although specialized laboratory tests such as metal ion levels and cross sectional imaging modalities such as MARS MRI can be used to facilitate clinical decision making, over-reliance on any single investigative tool in the clinical decision-making process should be avoided. Further research is required to obtain a better understanding of implant and patient risk factors associated with tribocorrosion in MoM total hip arthroplasty.

Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: Current status and future prospects

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings were re-popularised in the late 1990s with the introduction of modern hip resurfacing (HR), followed closely by large metal head total hip arthroplasty (THA). A worldwide increase in the use of MoM hip arthroplasty subsequently saw a sharp decline, due to serious complications.MoM was rapidly adopted in the early 2000s until medical device alerts were issued by government regulatory agencies and national and international organisations, leading to post-marketing surveillance and discontinuation of these implants.Guidelines for MoM hip implant follow-up differ considerably between regulatory authorities worldwide; this can in part be attributed to missing or conflicting evidence.The authors consider that the use of large-head MoM THA should be discontinued. MoM HR should be approached with caution and, when considered, should be used only in patients who meet all of the recommended selection criteria, which limits its indications considerably.The phased introduction of new prostheses should be mandatory in future. Close monitoring of outcomes and long-term follow-up is also necessary for the introduction of new prostheses. Cite this article: van Lingen CP, Zagra LM, Ettema HB, Verheyen CC. Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: current status and future prospects. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:345-353. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160014.

Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Hip Resurfacing Revision: A Cohort Study Into the Second Decade After the Operation

BACKGROUND

Most metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs have experienced high short-term failure rates because of pseudotumors. The impact of this complication into the second decade after the procedure is unknown. We investigated (1) the prevalence of, and risk factors for, all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision at up to 15 years following MoMHR and (2) whether risk factors were sex-specific.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study included 1,429 MoMHRs (1216 patients; 40% female) implanted between 1999 and 2009. Patients were contacted in 2010 and 2012 as per national recommendations. Patients with symptoms related to the hip and/or suboptimal Oxford Hip Scores (≤41 of 48 points) underwent cross-sectional imaging and blood metal-ion sampling. Revision diagnoses were established using operative and histopathological findings. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of predictor variables with the time to all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty MoMHRs (12.6%) were revised for all causes, and 111 (7.8% of the series and 61.7 % of all revisions) were revised because of pseudotumor. Survival analysis showed the 15-year cumulative revision rate for all causes to be 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.2% to 23.2%) and the 15-year rate of revision due to pseudotumor to be 14.0% (95% CI = 11.0% to 17.7%). Small femoral head size (hazard ratio [HR] per 2 mm = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and certain implant designs (HR = 1.55 to 3.01; p ≤ 0.029) significantly increased the all-cause revision risk. Female sex (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.44; p = 0.009) and young age (HR per year = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.00; p = 0.020) significantly increased the pseudotumor-related revision risk but not the all-cause revision risk. Risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision were sex-specific. In females, small femoral head size (p = 0.014) increased the all-cause revision risk, and young age was the only predictor of pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.019). In males, implant design was the only predictor of all-cause revision (p ≤ 0.015) and pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and rates of revision for all causes and pseudotumor were high at up to 15 years following MoMHR. Predictors of revision differed between all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions and were sex-specific. These factors must be appropriately weighted when risk-stratifying patients with MoMHRs for surveillance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both?

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery.

Methods

This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study involved 39 patients (40 MoMHRs). The time between imaging modalities was a mean of 14.6 days (0 to 90), with imaging performed at a mean of 5.3 months (0.06 to 12) before revision. The prevalence of intra-operative pseudotumours was 82.5% (n = 33).

Results

Agreement with the intra-operative findings was 82.5% (n = 33) for ultrasound alone, 87.5% (n = 35) for MARS-MRI alone, and 92.5% (n = 37) for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined. The diagnostic characteristics for ultrasound alone and MARS-MRI alone reached similar sensitivities (90.9% vs 93.9%) and positive predictive values (PPVs; 88.2% vs 91.2%), but higher specificities (57.1% vs 42.9%) and negative predictive values (NPVs; 66.7% vs 50.0%) were achieved with MARS-MRI. Ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined produced 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV, whilst maintaining both specificity (57.1%) and PPV (91.7%).

For the identification of a pseudotumour, which was confirmed at revision surgery, agreement was substantial for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined (κ = 0.69), moderate for MARS-MRI alone (κ = 0.54), and fair for ultrasound alone (κ = 0.36).

Discussion

These findings suggest that ultrasound and/or MARS-MRI have a role when assessing patients with a MoMHR, with the choice dependent on local financial constraints and the availability of ultrasound expertise. However in patients with a MoMHR who require revision, combined imaging was most effective.

Take home message: Combined imaging with ultrasound and MARS-MRI always identified intra-operative pseudotumours if present. Furthermore, if neither imaging modality showed a pseudotumour, one was not found intra-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:40–8.

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

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether blood metal ions could effectively identify patients with metal-on-metal hip implants with two common designs (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR] and Corail-Pinnacle) who were at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective study involved 598 patients with unilateral hip implants (309 patients with the BHR implant and 289 patients with the Corail-Pinnacle implant) undergoing whole blood metal ion sampling at a mean time of 6.9 years. Patients were classified into two groups, one that had adverse reactions to metal debris (those who had to undergo revision for adverse reactions to metal debris or those with adverse reactions to metal debris on imaging; n = 46) and one that did not (n = 552). Three metal ion parameters (cobalt, chromium, and cobalt-chromium ratio) were compared between groups. Optimal metal ion thresholds for identifying patients with adverse reactions to metal debris were determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

RESULTS

All ion parameters were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the patients who had adverse reactions to metal debris compared with those who did not. Cobalt maximized the area under the curve for patients with the BHR implant (90.5%) and those with the Corail-Pinnacle implant (79.6%). For patients with the BHR implant, the area under the curve for cobalt was significantly greater than that for the cobalt-chromium ratio (p = 0.0005), but it was not significantly greater than that for chromium (p = 0.8483). For the patients with the Corail-Pinnacle implant, the area under the curve for cobalt was significantly greater than that for chromium (p = 0.0004), but it was similar to that for the cobalt-chromium ratio (p = 0.8139). Optimal blood metal ion thresholds for identifying adverse reactions to metal debris varied between the two different implants. When using cobalt, the optimal threshold for identifying adverse reactions to metal debris was 2.15 μg/L for the BHR group and 3.57 μg/L for the Corail-Pinnacle group. These thresholds had good sensitivities (88.5% for the BHR group and 80.0% for the Corail-Pinnacle group) and specificities (84.5% for the BHR group and 76.2% for the Corail-Pinnacle group), high negative predictive values (98.8% for the BHR group and 98.1% for the Corail-Pinnacle group), and low positive predictive values (34.3% for the BHR group and 20.0% for the Corail-Pinnacle group). The authority thresholds proposed by the United States (3 μg/L and 10 μg/L) and the United Kingdom (7 μg/L) missed more patients with adverse reactions to metal debris at 2.0% to 4.7% (twelve to twenty-eight patients) compared with our implant-specific thresholds at 1.2% (seven patients missed).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty performed with unilateral BHR or Corail-Pinnacle implants and who had blood metal ions below our implant-specific thresholds were at low risk of adverse reactions to metal debris. These thresholds could be used to rationalize follow-up resources in asymptomatic patients. Analysis of cobalt alone is acceptable. Implant-specific thresholds were more effective than currently recommended fixed authority thresholds for identifying patients at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris requiring further investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Revision of a single type of large metal head metal-on-metal hip prosthesis

Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties were introduced because of their purported advantages. Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after MoM hip arthroplasty and often lead to revision. The purpose of this study was to assess the outcome of revision of large-head MoM total hip arthroplasties after an extensive screening protocol for all MoM articulations with a minimum 2 year follow-up. We identified 50 hips that had undergone large-head MoM total hip arthoplasty and required revision at a mean of 44 months after index operation. Of these, 38 were revised for pseudotumours, 7 for loosening, 2 for infection and 3 for instability. There was bone loss in 44 hips. The majority were revised to a 28 mm metal or ceramic head on a polyethylene-cemented cup. In 12 patients there was a complication. There was a decrease of whole blood cobalt from 20.8 µg/L preoperatively to 1.8 µg/L 1 year after revision. We found 6 residual masses on routine postoperative CT scans. The indication for revision of this cohort is inevitable but the clinical outcome 2 years after revision for pseudotumour is disappointing. Revising a MoM hip arthroplasty to a conventional cemented polyethylene or dual-mobility cup with bone impaction grafting and a 28 mm head can adequately treat the high ion levels and probably the disease of ARMD.

The utility of repeat ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients

INTRODUCTION

We assessed changes in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) after repeat ultrasound examination.

METHODS

This retrospective, single-centre cohort study involved all patients undergoing two ultrasound examinations of the same MoMHA. Between 2010 and 2014, 96 ultrasound examinations were performed in 48 MoMHAs (mean time between scans = 1.1 years). A radiologist assigned each scan to one of four grades and measured volumes of any solid/cystic masses. Changes in grade and lesion volume between scans were analysed.

RESULTS

Change in grade between scans was significant (p=0.012); 27% (n=13) of MoMHAs increased in grade, 67% (n=32) had no grade change, and 6% (n=3) decreased in grade. The mean increase in lesion volume was 24.2cm(3) by the second scan, and was significant (p=0.023). Evidence of progression in findings was observed in 54% (26/48) of MoMHAs. Of patients with normal scans initially, 44% (8/18) developed abnormalities. No factors (including blood metal ion concentrations and cup position) were associated significantly with progression of ultrasound findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat ultrasound in MoMHA patients demonstrated that findings frequently progress in the short-term. Therefore, regular surveillance of MoMHA patients is important, with ultrasound representing an effective investigation for identifying the development and progression of lesions.

How Should We Follow-Up Asymptomatic Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Patients? A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study

Current surveillance for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients is not evidence based. This study established changes that occurred in 152 asymptomatic MoMHRs using repeat ultrasound and patient-reported outcomes. Factors associated with (1) ultrasound progression and (2) developing new pseudotumors were analyzed. Patients underwent repeat assessments 4.3 years later. Ultrasound progression was observed in 19% (n = 29), with 10% (n = 15) developing new pseudotumors. Key predictors of ultrasound progression included high blood cobalt (P = .00013) and chromium (P = .00065), and high initial ultrasound grade (P = .003) and volume (P = .036). No asymptomatic MoMHRs with initially normal metal ions (<2 μg/L) and normal ultrasounds (33% of cohort) developed new pseudotumors. This patient subgroup does not require repeat follow-up within 5 years.

Is there a rationale to use a dual mobility poly insert for failed Birmingham metal-on-metal hip replacements? A retrieval analysis

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies showed poor outcomes for patients undergoing revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM-THA) and resurfacing (RS) with an increased risk of dislocation. Dual mobility inserts are an option to retain the acetabular component and change the metal-on-metal bearing to plastic-on-metal. The current study analyzes the rationale for the off-label use of a dual mobility poly insert (MDM X3, Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) in a Birmingham metal shell (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Based on retrievals from the implant database the study compared the clearance between 20 BHR shells, 31 MDM poly inserts and 24 ADM acetabular components of different sizes. The radial clearance was calculated for each possible combination of implants [n = 81 (MDM/BHR) and n = 119 (MDM/ADM)].

RESULTS

An MDM mobile bearing poly insert in an ADM shell has an average clearance of 0.314 mm (SD 0.031) compared to 0.234 mm (SD 0.030) in a BHR shell (p < 0.01). The minimal clearance is 0.246 and 0.163 mm, respectively. 30.9 % of the MDM/BHR clearances were within the range of the MDM/ADM bearing and 88.9 % had a clearance of more than 0.2 mm.

CONCLUSION

Clearances of the MDM poly insert in a BHR shell are reduced, and although the majority of combinations appear safe, the indication needs to be made on an individual base carefully considering alternative treatment options.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Adverse Reactions and Patient Management

Recent alarming joint registry data highlighting increased revision rates has prompted further research into the area of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings. This review article examines the latest literature on the topic of adverse reactions to metal debris and summarises the most up-to-date guidelines on patient management. Adverse reactions to metal debris can cause significant damage to soft tissue and bone if not diagnosed early. Furthermore, not every patient with an adverse reaction to metal debris will be symptomatic. As such, clinicians must remain vigilant when assessing and investigating these patients in order to detect failing implants and initiate appropriate management.