Predicting high blood metal ion concentrations following hip resurfacing

Careful patient selection together with optimal implant positioning may reduce but does not eliminate the risk of elevated serum cobalt and chrome levels following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

Elevated serum chrome (sCr) and cobalt (sCo) concentrations are associated with local tissue adverse reactions to metal debris following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR). Serum metal ions <2 µg/l are probably of little clinical relevance and a pragmatic "safe" threshold <5 µg/l has been suggested.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate if a careful selection of patients combined with optimal implant positioning could eliminate cases with "unsafe" serum metal ion levels. A secondary aim was to study the association between different risk factors and having Co and/or Cr levels >5 µg/l.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of 410 consecutive patients operated on with a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant between 2001 and 2014. 288 of these had a unilateral MoM-HR, pelvic and true lateral radiographs, and a related sCo and sCr sample, and were included in the final analysis. They were allocated to either a presumed "optimal group" consisting of only men aged <60 years old, with femoral head component >48 mm diameter, and with a cup positioned within Lewinnek's safe zones, or a "suboptimal group" consisting of the remaining patients. Fisher's exact test and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the optimal group 48% (47/97) had serum metal ions >2 µg/l and 8% (8/97) >5 µg/l compared to 61% (116/191) and 18% (34/191) in the suboptimal group, p = 0.059 and p = 0.034 respectively. Acetabular cups with an anteversion <5 degrees had the highest odds ratio, 6.5 (95% CI, 3.0-14.3), of having sCo and sCr concentrations exceeding 5 µg/l.

CONCLUSIONS

A well oriented BHR acetabular component in a presumably "optimal" patient reduces the risk of having elevated serum metal ions but does not eliminate it. Insufficient cup anteversion seems to be the strongest associated factor of elevated serum metals.

How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

BACKGROUND

Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in "at-risk" Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall.

METHODS

All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data.

RESULTS

The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76-£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing MHRA surveillance for "at-risk" BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients.

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

The unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led to worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However, these recommendations are not evidence-based and are very costly. The rapidly evolving evidence base requires an update regarding the investigation and management of MoMHA patients. This article is the first of 2 (the second article in this series will consider the threshold for performing revision, and the outcomes following ARMD revision surgery: Matharu et al., Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018; in press), and considers the various investigative modalities used during surveillance, with specific focus on blood metal ion sampling and cross-sectional imaging. No single investigation can universally be used during MoMHA patient surveillance. Recent studies have now provided important information on interpreting blood metal ions (effective in identifying patients at low risk of problems), clarifying the roles of cross-sectional imaging (reserve combined ultrasound and MARS-MRI for complex cases), and providing parameters to safely exclude many asymptomatic patients from regular surveillance. This information will be useful when designing future surveillance protocols for MoMHA patients.

Patient Obesity Influences Pelvic Lift During Cup Insertion in Total Hip Arthroplasty Through a Lateral Transgluteal Approach in Supine Position

BACKGROUND

Movement of the pelvis during implantation of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has a major influence on the positioning of the acetabular cup. Strong traction caused by retractors leads to iatrogenic pelvic lift and can thus be partly responsible for cup malpositioning. The objective of this study was to investigate such factors that influence pelvic lift.

METHODS

The dynamic movement of the pelvis was measured during implantation of THA in 67 patients. This was done by measuring the acceleration using the SensorLog app on a smartphone.

RESULTS

At its maximum, the pelvis was lifted by an average of 6.7°. When impacting the press-fit cup, the surgical side was raised by 4.4° compared with the time of skin incision. This lift at the time of cup implantation correlates significantly with the body mass index and the patient's abdominal and pelvic circumference.

CONCLUSION

Every surgeon performing THA must be aware of the pelvic lift during an operation. Especially in patients with a high body mass index, a large abdominal circumference, or a large pelvic circumference, there is an increased risk of malpositioning of the acetabular cup. When impacting the cup, we recommend releasing the traction of the retractor, so that the pelvis can tilt back into its natural position, and thus, the anticipated cup positioning can be implemented as exactly as possible.

Influence of Surgical Approach on Pelvic Lift in Hip Arthroplasty During Cup Insertion

The position of the acetabular cup is a major factor in the long-term outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Malpositioning of the acetabular cup frequently has been reported with the use of a minimally invasive implantation technique. It remains unclear whether the limited visibility or the increased retractor traction and thus tilting of the pelvis during cup implantation is the cause. This study investigated the influence of iatrogenically related pelvic lift using an anterolateral minimally invasive THA technique. In a group of 30 consecutive patients who underwent THA via a minimally invasive anterolateral approach, iatrogenic lifting of the pelvis was measured with a smartphone using a 3-axis accelerometer and compared with patients in a historical age- and sex-matched control group who underwent THA using a transgluteal approach. Postoperatively, the inclination and anteversion of the cup was determined on pelvic radiographs. In the anterolateral group, the pelvis was lifted by a maximum of 6.3° and by an average of 3.9° when the acetabular cup was impacted; no difference was noted compared with the transgluteal group. In contrast, the cups in the anterolateral group showed significantly increased inclination and reduced anteversion. In both techniques, the iatrogenic tilting of the pelvis at the time of cup implantation occurred to a comparable extent. Therefore, the significant differences in postoperative radiographs cannot be attributed to increased retractor traction on exposure of the acetabulum, which means that the limited visibility must be responsible. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e589-e593.].

Patient and Radiographic Factors Help to Predict Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacings with Evidence of a Pseudotumor

BACKGROUND

The role of radiographs in the follow-up of patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) implants is unclear. We investigated whether a combination of patient and radiographic factors predicted MoMHRs with evidence of a pseudotumor.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center case-control study of 384 MoMHRs. The pseudotumor group of 130 hips all had evidence of a symptomatic pseudotumor on cross-sectional imaging, with the diagnosis confirmed at revision. The nonpseudotumor group of 254 hips (a subgroup of these hips were previously reported on) all had normal findings on cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs taken immediately prior to revision were assessed in the pseudotumor group and were compared with radiographs taken at the time of normal cross-sectional imaging in the nonpseudotumor group. Two blinded independent observers analyzed the radiographs for signs of failure, with excellent interobserver agreement. Logistic regression modeling identified the patient and radiographic predictors of revision for pseudotumor.

RESULTS

Hips with a pseudotumor more commonly had abnormal findings on radiographs compared to hips without a pseudotumor (80.0% compared with 63.4%; p = 0.001). Patient and radiographic factors predictive of revision for pseudotumor in the multivariable model were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85 to 5.35; p < 0.001), high inclination (OR, 1.04 per degree; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.07 per degree; p = 0.006), acetabular osteolysis (OR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.14 to 12.0; p < 0.001), femoral osteolysis (OR, 17.8; 95% CI, 5.09 to 62.2; p < 0.001), and acetabular loosening (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.34 to 8.35; p = 0.009). Factors predictive of not having a pseudotumor were anteversion of ≥5° (5° to <10°: OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.77; p = 0.012; and ≥10°: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004) and heterotopic ossification (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.72; p = 0.015). The final multivariable model was well calibrated (p = 0.589), with good discriminatory ability (area under the curve = 0.801; sensitivity = 74.4%; specificity = 71.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of patient and radiographic factors provided useful information for distinguishing between MoMHRs with and without evidence of a pseudotumor. Surgeons may wish to consider these specific patient and radiographic factors before proceeding with cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs are important when assessing patients with MoMHR implants and should be included in all follow-up protocols.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Correlation of serum metal ion levels with pathological changes of ARMD in failed metal-on-metal-hip-resurfacing arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal-hip-resurfacing arthroplasties (MoMHRAs) have been associated with an increased failure rates due to an adverse-response-to-metal-debris (ARMD) associated with a spectrum of pathological features. Serum levels of cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) are used to assess MoMHRAs, with regard to ARMD, but it is not certain whether ion levels correlate with pathological changes in periprosthetic tissues.

METHODS

Serum Co and Cr levels were correlated with histological findings in 38 revised MoMHRAs (29 pseudotumour cases and 9 non-pseudotumour cases revised for pain). The extent of necrosis and macrophage infiltrate as well as the aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) response was assessed semi-quantitatively; the prosthesis linear wear rate (PLWR) was also determined in ten cases.

RESULTS

Cr levels were elevated in 82% and Co levels elevated in 53% of cases; the PLWR correlated with Cr level (rho = 0.8, p = 0.006). Tissue necrosis and macrophage infiltration were noted in all, most of which also exhibited significant ALVAL. Although a discrete correlation was not seen between Co and/or Cr ion levels and the extent of necrosis, degree of macrophage infiltration, or ALVAL score, it was noted that cases with acceptable metal ions levels had high ALVAL score.

CONCLUSION

Histological features of both innate and adaptive immune response to metal wear are seen in periprosthetic tissues in cases with both elevated and non-elevated metal ion levels. MoMHRA failures with acceptable ion levels exhibited a pronounced ALVAL response. Although metal ion levels are elevated in most cases of MoMHRA failure due to ARMD, the finding of a normal metal ion level does not exclude this diagnosis.

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.

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional, stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA). The best reported results are young, active patients with good bone stock and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Since the 1990s, metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA has achieved excellent outcomes when used in the appropriate patient population. Concerns regarding the metal-on-metal bearing surface including adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to metal debris have recently lead to a decline in the use of this construct. The current paper aims to provide an updated review on HRA, including a critical review of the most recent literature on HRA.