PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (1369003)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty 
Executive Summary
Objective
The objective of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of metal on metal (MOM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty for young patients compared with that of total hip replacement (THR) in the same population.
Clinical Need
Total hip replacement has proved to be very effective for late middle-aged and elderly patients with severe degenerative diseases of the hips. As indications for THR began to include younger patients and those with a more active life style, the longevity of the implant became a concern. Evidence suggests that these patients experience relatively higher rates of early implant failure and the need for revision. The Swedish hip registry, for example, has demonstrated a survival rate in excess of 80% at 20 years for those aged over 65 years, whereas this figure was 33% by 16 years in those aged under 55 years.
Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is a bone-conserving alternative to THR that restores normal joint biomechanics and load transfer. The technique has been used around the world for more than 10 years, specifically in the United Kingdom and other European countries.
The Technology
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty is an alternative procedure to conventional THR in younger patients. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is less invasive than THR and addresses the problem of preserving femoral bone stock at the initial operation. This means that future hip revisions are possible with THR if the initial MOM arthroplasty becomes less effective with time in these younger patients. The procedure involves the removal and replacement of the surface of the femoral head with a hollow metal hemisphere, which fits into a metal acetabular cup.
Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is a technically more demanding procedure than is conventional THR. In hip resurfacing, the femoral head is retained, which makes it much more difficult to access the acetabular cup. However, hip resurfacing arthroplasty has several advantages over a conventional THR with a small (28 mm) ball. First, the large femoral head reduces the chance of dislocation, so that rates of dislocation are less than those with conventional THR. Second, the range of motion with hip resurfacing arthroplasty is higher than that achieved with conventional THR.
A variety of MOM hip resurfacing implants are used in clinical practice. Six MOM hip resurfacing implants have been issued licences in Canada.
Review Strategy
A search of electronic bibliographies (OVID Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and DSR, INAHTA) was undertaken to identify evidence published from Jan 1, 1997 to October 27, 2005. The search was limited to English-language articles and human studies. The literature search yielded 245 citations. Of these, 11 met inclusion criteria (9 for effectiveness, 2 for safety).
The result of the only reported randomized controlled trial on MOM hip resurfacing arthroplasty could not be included in this assessment, because it used a cemented acetabular component, whereas in the new generation of implants, a cementless acetabular component is used. After omitting this publication, only case series remained.
Summary of Findings
 
Health Outcomes
The Harris hip score and SF-12 are 2 measures commonly used to report health outcomes in MOM hip resurfacing arthroplasty studies. Other scales used are the Oxford hip score and the University of California Los Angeles hip score.
The case series showed that the mean revision rate of MOM hip resurfacing arthroplasty is 1.5% and the incidence of femoral neck fracture is 0.67%. Across all studies, 2 cases of osteonecrosis were reported. Four studies reported improvement in Harris hip scores. However, only 1 study reported a statistically significant improvement. Three studies reported improvement in SF-12 scores, of which 2 reported a significant improvement. One study reported significant improvement in UCLA hip score. Two studies reported postoperative Oxford hip scores, but no preoperative values were reported.
None of the reviewed studies reported procedure-related deaths. Four studies reported implant survival rates ranging from 94.4% to 99.7% for a follow-up period of 2.8 to 3.5 years. Three studies reported on the range of motion. One reported improvement in all motions including flexion, extension, abduction-adduction, and rotation, and another reported improvement in flexion. Yet another reported improvement in range of motion for flexion abduction-adduction and rotation arc. However, the author reported a decrease in the range of motion in the arc of flexion in patients with Brooker class III or IV heterotopic bone (all patients were men).
Safety of Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
There is a concern about metal wear debris and its systemic distribution throughout the body. Detectable metal concentrations in the serum and urine of patients with metal hip implants have been described as early as the 1970s, and this issue is still controversial after 35 years.
Several studies have reported high concentration of cobalt and chromium in serum and/or urine of the patients with metal hip implants. Potential toxicological effects of the elevated metal ions have heightened concerns about safety of MOM bearings. This is of particular concern in young and active patients in whom life expectancy after implantation is long.
Since 1997, 15 studies, including 1 randomized clinical trial, have reported high levels of metal ions after THR with metal implants. Some of these studies have reported higher metal levels in patients with loose implants.
Adverse Biological Effects of Cobalt and Chromium
Because patients who receive a MOM hip arthroplasty are shown to be exposed to high concentrations of metallic ions, the Medical Advisory Secretariat searched the literature for reports of adverse biological effects of cobalt and chromium. Cobalt and chromium make up the major part of the metal articulations; therefore, they are a focus of concern.
Risk of Cancer
To date, only one study has examined the incidence of cancer after MOM and polyethylene on metal total hip arthroplasties. The results were compared to that of general population in Finland. The mean duration of follow-up for MOM arthroplasty was 15.7 years; for polyethylene arthroplasty, it was 12.5 years. The standardized incidence ratio for all cancers in the MOM group was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.79–1.13). In the polyethylene on metal group it was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68–0.86). The combined standardized incidence ratio for lymphoma and leukemia in the patients who had MOM THR was 1.59 (95% CI, 0.82–2.77). It was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.29–1.05) for the patients who had polyethylene on metal THR. Patients with MOM THR had a significantly higher risk of leukemia. All patients who had leukemia were aged over than 60 years.
Cobalt Cardiotoxicity
 
Epidemiological Studies of Myocardiopathy of Beer Drinkers
An unusual type of myocardiopathy, characterized by pericardial effusion, elevated hemoglobin concentrations, and congestive heart failure, occurred as an epidemic affecting 48 habitual beer drinkers in Quebec City between 1965 and 1966. This epidemic was directly related the consumption of a popular beer containing cobalt sulfate. The epidemic appeared 1 month after cobalt sulfate was added to the specific brewery, and no further cases were seen a month after this specific chemical was no longer used in making this beer. A beer of the same name is made in Montreal, and the only difference at that time was that the Quebec brand of beer contained about 10 times more cobalt sulphate. Cobalt has been added to some Canadian beers since 1965 to improve the stability of the foam but it has been added in larger breweries only to draught beer. However, in small breweries, such as those in Quebec City, separate batches were not brewed for bottle and draught beer; therefore, cobalt was added to all of the beer processed in this brewery.
In March 1966, a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Health for Quebec that included members of the department of forensic medicine of Quebec’s Ministry of Justice, epidemiologists, members of Food and Drug Directorate of Ottawa, toxicologists, biomedical researchers, pathologists, and members of provincial police. Epidemiological studies were carried out by the Provincial Ministry of Health and the Quebec City Health Department.
The association between the development of myocardiopathy and the consumption of the particular brand of beer was proven. The mortality rate of this epidemic was 46.1% and those who survived were desperately ill, and recovered only after a struggle for their lives.
Similar cases were seen in Omaha (Nebraska). The epidemic started after a cobalt additive was used in 1 of the beers marketed in Nebraska. Sixty-four patients with the clinical diagnosis of alcoholic myocardiopathy were seen during an 18-month period (1964–1965). Thirty of these patients died. The first patient became ill within 1 month after cobalt was added to the beer, and the last patient was seen within 1 month of withdrawal of cobalt.
A similar epidemic occurred in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Between 1964 and 1967, 42 patients with acute heart failure were admitted to a hospital in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Twenty of these patients were drinking 6 to 30 bottles per day of a particular brand of beer exclusively. The other 14 patients also drank the same brand of beer, but not exclusively. The mortality rate from the acute illness was 18%, but late deaths accounted for a total mortality rate of 43%. Examination of the tissue from these patients revealed markedly abnormal changes in myofibrils (heart muscles), mitochondria, and sarcoplasmic reticulum.
In Belgium, a similar epidemic was reported in 1966, in which, cobalt was used in some Belgian beers. There was a difference in mortality between the Canadian or American epidemic and this series. Only 1 of 24 patients died, 1.5 years after the diagnosis. In March 1965, at an international meeting in Brussels, a new heart disease in chronic beer drinkers was described. This disease consists of massive pericardial effusion, low cardiac output, raised venous pressure, and polycythemia in some cases. This syndrome was thought to be different from the 2 other forms of alcoholic heart disease (beriberi and a form characterized by myocardial fibrosis).
The mystery of the above epidemics as stated by investigators is that the amount of cobalt added to the beer was below the therapeutic doses used for anemia. For example, 24 pints of Quebec brand of beer in Quebec would contain 8 mg of cobalt chloride, whereas an intake of 50 to 100 mg of cobalt as an antianemic agent has been well tolerated. Thus, greater cobalt intake alone does not explain the occurrence of myocardiopathy. It seems that there are individual differences in cobalt toxicity. Other features, like subclinical alcoholic heart disease, deficient diet, and electrolyte imbalance could have been precipitating factors that made these patients susceptible to cobalt’s toxic effects.
In the Omaha epidemic, 60% of the patients had weight loss, anorexia, and occasional vomiting and diarrhea 2 to 6 months before the onset of cardiac symptoms. In the Quebec epidemic, patients lost their appetite 3 to 6 months before the diagnosis of myocardiopathy and developed nausea in the weeks before hospital admission. In the Belgium epidemic, anorexia was one of the most predominant symptoms at the time of diagnosis, and the quality and quantity of food intake was poor. Alcohol has been shown to increase the uptake of intracoronary injected cobalt by 47%. When cobalt enters the cells, calcium exits; this shifts the cobalt to calcium ratio. The increased uptake of cobalt in alcoholic patients may explain the high incidence of cardiomyopathies in beer drinkers’ epidemics.
As all of the above suggest, it may be that prior chronic exposure to alcohol and/or a nutritionally deficient diet may have a marked synergistic effect with the cardiotoxicity of cobalt.
Conclusions
MOM hip resurfacing arthroplasty has been shown to be an effective arthroplasty procedure as tested in younger patients.
However, evidence for effectiveness is based only on 7 case series with short duration of follow-up (2.8–3.5 years). There are no RCTs or other well-controlled studies that compare MOM hip resurfacing with THR.
Revision rates reported in the MOM studies using implants currently licensed in Canada (hybrid systems, uncemented acetabular, and cemented femoral) range from 0.3% to 3.6% for a mean follow-up ranging from 2.8 to 3.5 years.
Fracture of femoral neck is not very common; it occurs in 0.4% to 2.2% of cases (as observed in a short follow-up period).
All the studies that measured health outcomes have reported improvement in Harris Hip and SF-12 scores; 1 study reported significant reduction in pain and improvement in function, and 2 studies reported significant improvement in SF-12 scores. One study reported significant improvement in UCLA Hip scores.
Concerns remain on the potential adverse effects of metal ions. Longer-term follow-up data will help to resolve the inconsistency of findings on adverse effects, including toxicity and carcinogenicity.
Ontario-Based Economic Analysis
The device cost for MOM ranges from $4,300 to $6,000 (Cdn). Traditional hip replacement devices cost about $2,000 (Cdn). Using Ontario Case Costing Initiative data, the total estimated costs for hip resurfacing surgery including physician fees, device fees, follow-up consultation, and postsurgery rehabilitation is about $15,000 (Cdn).
Cost of Total Hip Replacement Surgery in Ontario
MOM hip arthroplasty is generally recommended for patients aged under 55 years because its bone-conserving advantage enables patients to “buy time” and hence helps THRs to last over the lifetime of the patient. In 2004/2005, 15.9% of patients who received THRs were aged 55 years and younger. It is estimated that there are from 600 to 1,000 annual MOM hip arthroplasty surgeries in Canada with an estimated 100 to 150 surgeries in Ontario. Given the increased public awareness of this device, it is forecasted that demand for MOM hip arthroplasty will steadily increase with a conservative estimate of demand rising to 1,400 cases by 2010 (Figure 10). The net budget impact over a 5-year period could be $500,000 to $4.7 million, mainly because of the increasing cost of the device.
Projected Number of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Surgeries in Ontario: to 2010
PMCID: PMC3379532  PMID: 23074495
2.  Revisions of Monoblock Metal-on-metal THAs Have High Early Complication Rates 
Background
A relatively high percentage of monoblock metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (THAs) undergo early revision. Revision of these THAs poses challenges unique to this implant type. The early complications after these revisions remain unreported as do the clinical and demographic factors associated with these complications.
Questions/purposes
We describe (1) the frequency of early complications after revision of monoblock metal-on-metal THA; and (2) the clinical and demographic factors associated with complications.
Methods
A review of our institution’s total joint registry identified 107 patients who underwent 114 revisions of monoblock metal-on-metal THAs. Mean patient age at revision was 60 years (range, 17–84 years), and 65% of the patients were women. Mean followup after revision was 14 months (range, 0–122 months). Revision diagnoses included metallosis (51%), aseptic loosening (27%), infection (7%), pain (6%), malposition (4%), instability (3%), iliopsoas impingement (2%), and periprosthetic fracture (1%). Major complications (instability, infection, aseptic loosening, and wound complications) were documented and included in the analysis. Minor postoperative complications such as urinary tract infection were excluded.
Results
Twenty-three of 114 procedures (20%) involved at least one early complication after revision of monoblock metal-on-metal THA with 18 (16%) undergoing at least one additional subsequent surgery. The most common complications included aseptic loosening (6%), deep infection (6%), dislocation (4%), and acetabular fracture (3%). Patients who sustained a complication after revision surgery were older on average than those who did not (66 years versus 58 years, p = 0.003). There were no differences in complication rate with respect to sex, time to revision, or revision diagnosis.
Conclusions
Complications and reoperations occur frequently after revision for failed monoblock metal-on-metal THA (20% and 16%, respectively), and older patients appear to be at greater risk for complications after these revisions. Aseptic loosening, deep infection, and instability are all of great concern after revision and surgeons should be aware of these potential complications when undertaking revision of these THAs.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3791-7
PMCID: PMC4294886  PMID: 25028106
3.  Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty 
Background
Metal-on-metal (MOM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is in clinical use as an appropriate alternative to total hip arthroplasty in young patients. In this technique, a metal cap is placed on the femoral head to cover the damaged surface of the bone and a metal cup is placed in the acetabulum.
Objectives
The primary objective of this analysis was to compare the revision rates of MOM HRA using different implants with the benchmark set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). The secondary objective of this analysis was to review the literature regarding adverse biological effects associated with implant material.
Review Methods
A literature search was performed on February 13, 2012, to identify studies published from January 1, 2009, to February 13, 2012.
Results
The revision rates for MOM HRA using 6 different implants were reviewed. The revision rates for MOM HRA with 3 implants met the NICE criteria, i.e., a revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years. Two implants had short-term follow-ups and MOM HRA with one of the implants failed to meet the NICE criteria.
Adverse tissue reactions resulting in failure of the implants have been reported by several studies. With a better understanding of the factors that influence the wear rate of the implants, adverse tissue reactions and subsequent implant failure can be minimized. Many authors have suggested that patient selection and surgical technique affect the wear rate and the risk of tissue reactions.
The biological effects of high metal ion levels in the blood and urine of patients with MOM HRA implants are not known. Studies have shown an increase in chromosomal aberrations in patients with MOM articulations, but the clinical implications and long-term consequences of this increase are still unknown. Epidemiological studies have shown that patients with MOM HRA implants did not have an overall increase in mortality or risk of cancer. There is insufficient clinical data to confirm the teratogenicity of MOM implants in humans.
Conclusions
Metal-on-metal HRA can be beneficial for appropriately selected patients, provided the surgeon has the surgical skills required for performing this procedure.
Plain Language Summary
There are many young patients with hip diseases who need to have hip replacement surgery. Although a traditional hip replacement is an acceptable procedure for these patients, some surgeons prefer using a newer technique in young patients called hip resurfacing. In this technique, instead of removing the head of the femoral bone, a metal cap is placed on the femoral head to cover the damaged surface of the bone and a metal cup is placed in the hip socket, similar to the cups used in traditional hip replacement.
The analysis of the revision rates (i.e., how soon and in how many patients the surgery needs to be redone) and safety of resurfacing implants showed that generally these implants can last 10 years or more for the majority of young people. Good outcomes can be expected when skilled surgeons perform the surgery in properly selected patients.
However, since these implants are made of metal (cobalt and chromium alloy), there is concern about excess metal debris production due to friction between the 2 metal components leading to high levels of metal ions in the blood and urine of patients. The production of metal debris may result in inflammation in the joint or development of a benign soft tissue mass leading to implant failure. However, it has been shown that this risk can be reduced by proper positioning of the implant and the careful selection of patients for this procedure.
Little is known about the long-term biological effects of high levels of metal ions in the blood and urine of patients who have received metal implants. There is concern about potential increases in the risk of cancer and the risk of fetal abnormalities, but these effects have not been established yet. However, since cobalt and chromium can pass the placental barrier, implants that are not metal-on-metal are recommended for women at childbearing ages if they need a hip replacement.
PMCID: PMC3440005  PMID: 23074429
4.  Hip Resurfacing versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Comparing Standardized Outcomes 
Background
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.
Questions/purposes
We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).
Results
The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95–3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2–8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1–11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7–7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4–11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3–2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2–4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6–1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.
Conclusions
Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3556-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3556-3
PMCID: PMC4048407  PMID: 24700446
5.  Outcomes of dual-mobility acetabular cup for instability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty 
Background
The concept of a dual-mobility hip socket involves the standard femoral head component encased in a larger polyethylene liner, which in turn articulates inside a metal shell implanted in the native acetabulum. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes from using a Serf Novae® Dual Mobility Acetabular cup (Orthodynamics Ltd, Gloucestershire, UK) to address the problem of instability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Materials and methods
A retrospective review was carried out of all hip arthroplasties performed in a District General Hospital utilising the dual-mobility socket from January 2007 to December 2012. Clinical and radiological outcomes were analysed for 44 hips in 41 patients, comprising 20 primary and 24 revision THA. The average age of the study group was 70.8 years (range 56–84 years) for primary and 76.4 years (range 56–89 years) for revision arthroplasty. Among the primary THA, always performed for hip osteoarthritis or in presence of osteoarthritic changes, the reasons to choose a dual mobility cup were central nervous system problems such as Parkinson’s disease, stroke, dementia (10), hip fracture (5), failed hip fracture fixation (2), severe fixed hip deformity (2) and diffuse peripheral neuropathy (1). The indications for revisions were recurrent dislocation (17), aseptic loosening with abductor deficiency (4), failed hemiarthroplasty with abductor deficiency (2) and neglected dislocation (1).
Results
At a mean follow-up of 22 months (range 6–63 months), none of the hips had any dislocation, instability or infection and no further surgical intervention was required. Radiological assessment showed that one uncemented socket in a revision arthroplasty performed for recurrent dislocation had changed position, but was stable in the new position. The patient did not have complications from this and did not need any surgical intervention.
Conclusions
Even though postoperative hip stability depends on several factors other than design-related ones, our study shows promising early results for reducing the risk of instability in this challenging group of patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty.
Level of evidence
IV.
doi:10.1007/s10195-014-0324-9
PMCID: PMC4348500  PMID: 25330736
Hip arthroplasty; Dislocation; Instability; Dual-mobility socket
6.  Outcomes of dual-mobility acetabular cup for instability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty 
Background
The concept of a dual-mobility hip socket involves the standard femoral head component encased in a larger polyethylene liner, which in turn articulates inside a metal shell implanted in the native acetabulum. The aim of this study was to assess outcomes from using a Serf Novae® Dual Mobility Acetabular cup (Orthodynamics Ltd, Gloucestershire, UK) to address the problem of instability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Materials and methods
A retrospective review was carried out of all hip arthroplasties performed in a District General Hospital utilising the dual-mobility socket from January 2007 to December 2012. Clinical and radiological outcomes were analysed for 44 hips in 41 patients, comprising 20 primary and 24 revision THA. The average age of the study group was 70.8 years (range 56–84 years) for primary and 76.4 years (range 56–89 years) for revision arthroplasty. Among the primary THA, always performed for hip osteoarthritis or in presence of osteoarthritic changes, the reasons to choose a dual mobility cup were central nervous system problems such as Parkinson’s disease, stroke, dementia (10), hip fracture (5), failed hip fracture fixation (2), severe fixed hip deformity (2) and diffuse peripheral neuropathy (1). The indications for revisions were recurrent dislocation (17), aseptic loosening with abductor deficiency (4), failed hemiarthroplasty with abductor deficiency (2) and neglected dislocation (1).
Results
At a mean follow-up of 22 months (range 6–63 months), none of the hips had any dislocation, instability or infection and no further surgical intervention was required. Radiological assessment showed that one uncemented socket in a revision arthroplasty performed for recurrent dislocation had changed position, but was stable in the new position. The patient did not have complications from this and did not need any surgical intervention.
Conclusions
Even though postoperative hip stability depends on several factors other than design-related ones, our study shows promising early results for reducing the risk of instability in this challenging group of patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty.
Level of evidence
IV.
doi:10.1007/s10195-014-0324-9
PMCID: PMC4348500  PMID: 25330736
Hip arthroplasty; Dislocation; Instability; Dual-mobility socket
7.  Mid-Term Results of Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing for Treatment of Osteoarthritis Secondary to Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Minimum of 8-Years of Follow-Up 
Background
Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty is an attractive alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). The purpose of this study was to assess the mid-term clinical outcome and mid-term survivorship of Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in patients suffering from osteoarthritis secondary to DDH.
Material/Methods
Between May 2003 and Dec. 2005, 15 operations using ASR™ and 19 using Corin were performed in 29 patients to treat advanced osteoarthritis secondary to DDHs. There were 6 males (20.7%) and 23 females (79.3%), with an average age of 47.2 years (range, 36–64 years). Clinical and radiographic results were observed. All patients were followed up at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months after surgery and annually thereafter.
Results
The overall survival was 88.2% at a minimum follow-up of 8 years, but the survival was 91.2% after excluding the infections as the cause of component loosening and failure. The mean Harris hip score improved from 48.27±3.13 (range, 14–71) to 89.63±3.42 (range, 65–100) at latest follow-up. The flexion was from 75.14±8.05° to 107.21±9.34. Only 4 failed because of deep infection, femoral neck fracture, and aseptic loosening.
Conclusions
Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty showed perfect results at a minimum of 8-years of follow-up in our study, and may be a reasonable option for osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).
doi:10.12659/MSM.890892
PMCID: PMC4247230  PMID: 25410054
Follow-Up Studies; Hip Dislocation, Congenital; Hip Prosthesis; Osteoarthritis, Hip
8.  Revision Rates after Primary Hip and Knee Replacement in England between 2003 and 2006 
PLoS Medicine  2008;5(9):e179.
Background
Hip and knee replacement are some of the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the world. Resurfacing of the hip and unicondylar knee replacement are increasingly being used. There is relatively little evidence on their performance. To study performance of joint replacement in England, we investigated revision rates in the first 3 y after hip or knee replacement according to prosthesis type.
Methods and Findings
We linked records of the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Hospital Episode Statistics for patients with a primary hip or knee replacement in the National Health Service in England between April 2003 and September 2006. Hospital Episode Statistics records of succeeding admissions were used to identify revisions for any reason. 76,576 patients with a primary hip replacement and 80,697 with a primary knee replacement were included (51% of all primary hip and knee replacements done in the English National Health Service). In hip patients, 3-y revision rates were 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8%–1.1%) with cemented, 2.0% (1.7%–2.3%) with cementless, 1.5% (1.1%–2.0% CI) with “hybrid” prostheses, and 2.6% (2.1%–3.1%) with hip resurfacing (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after hip resurfacing were increased especially in women. In knee patients, 3-y revision rates were 1.4% (1.2%–1.5% CI) with cemented, 1.5% (1.1%–2.1% CI) with cementless, and 2.8% (1.8%–4.5% CI) with unicondylar prostheses (p < 0.0001). Revision rates after knee replacement strongly decreased with age.
Interpretation
Overall, about one in 75 patients needed a revision of their prosthesis within 3 y. On the basis of our data, consideration should be given to using hip resurfacing only in male patients and unicondylar knee replacement only in elderly patients.
Jan van der Meulen and colleagues show that about one in 75 patients with a primary hip or knee replacement needed a revision of their prosthesis within 3 years.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Though records show attempts to replace a hip date back to 1891, it was not till the 1960s before total hip replacements were successfully performed, and the 1970s before total knee replacements were carried out. These procedures are some of the most frequently performed surgical operations, with a total of 160,00 total hip and knee replacement procedures carried out in England and Wales and about half a million in the US in 2006. Hip and knee replacements are most commonly used as a treatment for severe arthritis once other approaches, such as pain relief medications, have failed. A total hip replacement involves replacing the head of the femur (the thigh bone) with an artificial component, typically metal; the socket into which the new femur head will insert is also replaced with artificial components. In an alternative procedure, resurfacing, rather than replacing the entire joint, the diseased surfaces are replaced with metal components. This procedure may be better suited to patients with less severe disease, and is also thought to result in quicker recovery. The techniques for hip and knee replacement can also be divided into those where a cement is used to position the metal implant into the bone (cemented) versus those where cement is not used (cementless).
Why Was This Study Done?
To date, little evidence has been available to compare patient outcomes following hip or knee replacement with the many different types of techniques and prostheses available. National registries have been established in a number of countries to try to collect data in order to build the evidence base for evaluating different types of prosthesis. Specifically, it is important to find out if there are any important differences in revision rates (how often the hip replacement has to be re-done) following surgery using the different techniques. In England and Wales, the National Joint Registry (NJR) has collected data on patient characteristics, types of prostheses implanted, and the type of surgical procedures used, since its initiation in April 2003.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers linked the records of the NJR and the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for patients treated by the NHS in England who had undergone a primary hip and knee replacement between April 2003 and September 2006. The HES database contains records of all admissions to NHS hospitals in England, and allowed the researchers to more accurately identify revisions of procedures that were done on patients in the NJR database.
They identified 327,557 primary hip or knee replacement procedures performed during that time period, but only 167,076 could be linked between the two databases.
76,576 patients in the linked database had undergone a primary hip replacement. The overall revision rate was 1.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2%–1.5%) at 3 years, with the lowest revision rates experienced by patients who had cemented prostheses. Women were found to have higher revision rates after hip resurfacing, and the revision rate was about twice as high in patients who had had a hip replacement for other indications than osteoarthritis. A patient's age did not appear to affect revision rates after hip surgery.
80,697 patients in the linked database had undergone a primary knee replacement. The overall revision rate was 1.4% (95% CI 1.3%–1.6%) at three years, again with the lowest rates of replacement experienced by patients who had cemented prostheses. Revision rates after knee replacement strongly decreased with age.
What Do These Findings Mean?
Overall, about one in 75 patients required a revision of their joint replacement, which is considered low, and cemented hip or knee prosthesis had the lowest revision rates. Post hip replacement, the highest revision rate was in patients who had undergone hip resurfacing, especially women. Following knee replacement, the highest revision rate was in patients who had undergone unicondylar prosthesis. However, in this study patients were only followed up for three years after the initial knee replacement, and it's possible that different patterns regarding the success of these differing techniques may emerge after longer follow-up. Importantly, this study was entirely observational, and data were collected from patients who had been managed according to routine clinical practice (rather than being randomly assigned to different procedures). Substantial differences in the age and clinical characteristics of patients receiving the different procedures were seen. As a result, it's not possible to directly draw conclusions on the relative benefits or harms of the different procedures, but this study provides important benchmark data with which to evaluate future performance of different procedures and types of implant.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050179.
The website of the British Orthopaedic Association contains information for patients and surgeons
The website of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence contains guidance on hip prostheses
Information is available from the US National Institutes of Health (Medline) on hip replacement, including interactive tutorials and information about rehabilitation and recovery
Medline also provides similar resources for knee replacement
The NHS provides information for patients on hip and knee replacement, including questions patients might ask, real stories, and useful links
The National Joint Registry provides general information about joint replacement, as well as allowing users to download statistics on the data it has collected on the numbers of procedures carried out in the UK
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050179
PMCID: PMC2528048  PMID: 18767900
9.  Mortality rates at 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip replacement in England: retrospective cohort analysis of hospital episode statistics 
Objectives To compare 10 year mortality rates among patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and total hip replacement in England.
Design Retrospective cohort study.
Setting English hospital episode statistics database linked to mortality records from the Office for National Statistics.
Population All adults who underwent primary elective hip replacement for osteoarthritis from April 1999 to March 2012. The exposure of interest was prosthesis type: cemented total hip replacement, uncemented total hip replacement, and metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Confounding variables included age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, rurality, area deprivation, surgical volume, and year of operation.
Main outcome measures All cause mortality. Propensity score matching was used to minimise confounding by indication. Kaplan-Meier plots estimated the probability of survival up to 10 years after surgery. Multilevel Cox regression modelling, stratified on matched sets, described the association between prosthesis type and time to death, accounting for variation across hospital trusts.
Results 7437 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 22 311 undergoing cemented total hip replacement; 8101 patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing were matched to 24 303 undergoing uncemented total hip replacement. 10 year rates of cumulative mortality were 271 (3.6%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 1363 (6.1%) for cemented total hip replacement, and 239 (3.0%) for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus 999 (4.1%) for uncemented total hip replacement. Patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing had an increased survival probability (hazard ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.59) for cemented hip replacement; 0.55 (0.47 to 0.65) for uncemented hip replacement). There was no evidence for an interaction with age or sex.
Conclusions Patients with hip osteoarthritis undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing have reduced mortality in the long term compared with those undergoing cemented or uncemented total hip replacement. This difference persisted after extensive adjustment for confounding factors available in our data. The study results can be applied to matched populations, which exclude patients who are very old and have had complex total hip replacements. Although residual confounding is possible, the observed effect size is large. These findings require validation in external cohorts and randomised clinical trials.
doi:10.1136/bmj.f6549
PMCID: PMC3898581  PMID: 24284336
10.  Large head metal-on-metal cementless total hip arthroplasty versus 28mm metal-on-polyethylene cementless total hip arthroplasty: design of a randomized controlled trial 
Background
Osteoarthritis of the hip is successfully treated by total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Polyethylene wear debris can however lead to osteolysis, aseptic loosening and failure of the implant. Large head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty may overcome polyethylene wear induced prosthetic failure, but can increase systemic cobalt and chromium ion concentrations. The objective of this study is to compare two cementless total hip arthroplasties: a conventional 28 mm metal-on-polyethylene articulation and a large head metal-on-metal articulation. We hypothesize that the latter arthroplasties show less bone density loss and higher serum metal ion concentrations. We expect equal functional scores, greater range of motion, fewer dislocations, fewer periprosthetic radiolucencies and increased prosthetic survival with the metal-on-metal articulation.
Methods
A randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients to be included suffer from non-inflammatory degenerative joint disease of the hip, are aged between 18 and 80 and are admitted for primary cementless unilateral total hip arthroplasty. Patients in the metal-on-metal group will receive a cementless titanium alloy acetabular component with a cobalt-chromium liner and a cobalt-chromium femoral head varying from 38 to 60 mm. Patients in the metal-on-polyethylene group will receive a cementless titanium alloy acetabular component with a polyethylene liner and a 28 mm cobalt-chromium femoral head. We will assess acetabular bone mineral density by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), serum ion concentrations of cobalt, chromium and titanium, self reported functional status (Oxford hip score), physician reported functional status and range of motion (Harris hip score), number of dislocations and prosthetic survival. Measurements will take place preoperatively, perioperatively, and postoperatively (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years).
Discussion
Superior results of large head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty over conventional hip arthroplasty have been put forward by experts, case series and the industry, but to our knowledge there is no randomized controlled evidence.
Conclusion
This randomized controlled study has been designed to test whether large head metal-on-metal cementless total hip arthroplasty leads to less periprosthetic bone density loss and higher serum metal ion concentrations compared to 28 mm metal-on-polyethylene cementless total hip arthroplasty.
Trial registration
Netherlands Trial Registry NTR1399
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-9-136
PMCID: PMC2576464  PMID: 18842151
11.  Sex differences in the morphological failure patterns following hip resurfacing arthroplasty 
BMC Medicine  2011;9:113.
Background
Metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing arthroplasty (with a cementless acetabular component and a cemented femoral component) is offered as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty for the young and active adult with advanced osteoarthritis. Although it has been suggested that women are less appropriate candidates for metal-on-metal arthroplasty, the mechanisms of prosthesis failure has not been fully explained. While specific failure patterns, particularly osteonecrosis and delayed type hypersensitivity reactions have been suggested to be specifically linked to the sex of the patient, we wished to examine the potential influence of sex, clinical diagnosis, age of the patient and the size of the femoral component on morphological failure patterns in a large cohort of retrieved specimens following aseptic failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
Methods
Femoral remnants retrieved from 173 hips with known patient's sex were morphologically analyzed for the cause of failure. The results were compared with the control group of the remaining 31 failures from patients of unknown sex. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the following morphologically defined variables were calculated using logistic regression analysis: periprosthetic fractures (n = 133), osteonecrosis (n = 151), the presence of excessive intraosseous lymphocyte infiltration (n = 11), and interface hyperosteoidosis (n = 30). Logistic regression analysis was performed both unadjusted and after adjustment for sex, age, the size of the femoral component, and preoperative clinical diagnosis.
Results
Femoral remnants from female patients had a smaller OR for fracture (adjusted OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.11, 0.80, P for difference = 0.02) and for the presence of osteonecrosis (adjusted OR: 0.16, 95% CI 0.04, 0.63, P for difference = 0.01). However, women had a higher OR for both the presence of excessive intraosseous lymphocyte infiltration (adjusted OR: 10.22, 95% CI 0.79, 132.57, P for difference = 0.08) and interface hyperosteoidosis (adjusted OR: 4.19, 95% CI 1.14, 15.38, P for difference = 0.03).
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, we demonstrated substantial sex differences in distinct failure patterns of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Recognition of pathogenically distinct failure modes will enable further stratification of risk factors for certain failure mechanisms and thus affect future therapeutic options for selected patient groups.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-113
PMCID: PMC3204242  PMID: 21992554
12.  Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement - early results 
Introduction
There is no current consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip in young, active patients. Modern metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HR) has gained popularity as it is theoretically more stable, bone conserving and easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been encouraging. We have compared two well matched cohorts of patients with regard to function, pain relief and patient satisfaction.
Methods
This prospective study compares 2 cohorts of young, active patients treated with hip resurfacing (137 patients, 141 hips) and custom uncemented (CADCAM) stems (134 patients, 141 hips). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included Oxford, WOMAC and Harris hip scores as well as an activity score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test.
Results
One hundred and thirty four and 137 patients were included in the hip replacement and resurfacing groups respectively. The mean age of these patients was 54.6 years. The mean duration of follow up for the hip resurfacing group was 19.2 months compared to 13.4 months for the total hip replacement group.
Pre operative oxford, Harris and WOMAC scores in the THA group were 41.1, 46.4 and 50.9 respectively while the post operative scores were 14.8, 95.8 and 5.0. In the HR group, pre- operative scores were 37.0, 54.1 and 45.9 respectively compared to 15.0, 96.8 and 6.1 post operatively. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups.
Conclusion
There was no significant clinical difference between the patients treated with hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty in the short term.
doi:10.1186/1749-799X-5-8
PMCID: PMC2831868  PMID: 20167056
13.  Do Serologic and Synovial Tests Help Diagnose Infection in Revision Hip Arthroplasty With Metal-on-metal Bearings or Corrosion? 
Background
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients with failed metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and corrosion reactions in hip arthroplasties can be particularly difficult, because the clinical presentation of adverse local tissue reactions may mimic that of PJI, because it can also occur concurrently with PJI, and because common laboratory tests used to diagnose PJI may be elevated in patients with MoM THAs.
Questions/purposes
We sought to determine the test properties of the serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, and synovial fluid differential (percent polymorphonuclear cells [PMNs]) in diagnosing PJI in either MoM hips undergoing revision for a variety of indications or in non-MoM hips undergoing revision for either corrosion reaction or full-thickness wear. Additionally, we sought to describe how MoM bearings, metal debris, and corrosion reactions can confound the analysis of the synovial fluid WBC count and affect its diagnostic use for PJI.
Methods
We reviewed 150 revision hips meeting specified inclusion criteria (92 MoM total hips, 19 MoM hip resurfacings, 30 non-MoM bearings with corrosion, and nine full-thickness bearing surface wear with metallosis). In our review, we diagnosed 19 patients as infected using Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Mean laboratory values were compared between infected and not infected patients and receiver operator characteristic curves were generated with an area under the curve (AUC) to determine test performance and optimal cutoffs.
Results
After excluding the inaccurate synovial fluid samples, the synovial fluid WBC count (performed accurately in 102 patients) was the best test for the diagnosis of PJI (AUC = 98%, optimal cutoff 4350 WBC/μL) followed by the differential (performed accurately in 102 patients; AUC = 90%, optimal cutoff 85% PMN). The ESR (performed in 131 patients) and CRP (performed in 129 patients) both had good sensitivity (83% and 94%, respectively). Patients meeting MSIS criteria for PJI had higher mean serum ESR, CRP, synovial fluid WBC count, and differential than those not meeting MSIS criteria (p < 0.05 for all). An observer blinded to the MSIS diagnosis of the patient assessed the synovial fluid samples for inaccuracy secondary to metal or cellular debris. Synovial fluid sample “inaccuracy” was defined as the laboratory technician noting the presence of metal or amorpous material, fragmented cells, or clots, or the sample having some defect preventing an automated cell count from being performed. Of the 141 patients who had a synovial fluid sample initially available for review, 47 (33%) had a synovial fluid sample deemed to be inaccurate. A synovial fluid WBC count was still reported; however, 35 of these 47 hips (75%) and 11 of these 35 (31%) were falsely positive for infection.
Conclusions
The diagnosis of PJI is extremely difficult in patients with MoM bearings or corrosion and the synovial fluid WBC count can frequently be falsely positive and should be relied on only if a manual count is done and if a differential can be performed. A more aggressive approach to preoperative evaluation for PJI is recommended in these patients to allow for careful evaluation of the synovial fluid specimen, the integration of synovial fluid culture results, and repeat aspiration if necessary.
Level of Evidence
Level III, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3902-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3902-5
PMCID: PMC4294906  PMID: 25171935
14.  What Are the Current Clinical Issues in Wear and Tribocorrosion? 
Background
Wear and corrosion in joint arthroplasty are important causes of failure. From the standpoint of current clinical importance, there are four main categories of wear and tribocorrosion: polyethylene wear, ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearing wear, metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing wear, and taper tribocorrosion. Recently, problems with wear in the knee have become less prominent as have many issues with hip polyethylene (PE) bearings resulting from the success of crosslinked PE. However, MoM articulations and taper tribocorrosion have been associated with soft tissue inflammatory responses, and as a result, they have become prominent clinical concerns.
Where Are We Now?
For PE wear in the hip, several advances include improved locking mechanisms and data supporting highly crosslinked polyethylenes (HXLPE). Edge-loading in CoC articulations can contribute to stripe wear and subsequent squeaking. For MoM articulations, the relationship of wear-to-edge loading, sensitivity to component positioning, typical soft tissue response, and use of imaging is increasingly understood. Taper tribocorrosion (from femoral head–neck junctions and other modular elements) and associated soft tissue inflammatory responses appear to be serious clinical issues that are not fully understood.
Where Do We Need to Go?
In the knee, clinical concerns remain with the efficacy of HXLPE, modular connections, and metal allergies. For PE wear in the hip, concerns remain regarding how to increase crosslinking of PE while minimizing PE fractures. With CoC articulations, questions remain on how to prevent noises, chipping, and impingement and if enhanced designs can contribute to improved results. For MoM articulations, we need to improve imaging tests for soft tissue reactions, determine best practices in terms of monitoring protocols, and better define if, how, and when to act on serum metal levels. For taper tribocorrosion, we need to use modularity wisely and also understand how to improve tapers and materials in the future. For patients at risk for tribocorrosion, we need to define realistic diagnostic and monitoring protocols. We also need to enhance revision methods, and the threshold of acceptable soft tissue damage, to minimize complications associated with soft tissue damage such as hip instability.
How Do We Get There?
HXLPE and other bearing surfaces will likely continue to be refined. We need to develop tapers with more resistance to tribocorrosion through improved understanding of the manufacturing process and ongoing engineering improvements. Revision procedures for wear and tribocorrosion can be enhanced by determining when partial component retention is appropriate and how best to manage soft tissue damage. For CoC articulations, enhanced designs are required to minimize noises, chipping, and impingement. Importantly, we must continue to promote and analyze joint replacement registries to identify early failures and analyze long-term successes.
doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3610-1
PMCID: PMC4397753  PMID: 24711136
15.  Hip resurfacing in patients under thirty years old: an attractive option for young and active patients 
International Orthopaedics  2012;36(9):1789-1794.
Purpose
Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is offered as an alternative to traditional hip arthroplasty for young, active adults with advanced osteoarthritis. The concept of hip resurfacing is considered very attractive for this specific population (hard-on-hard bearing component with a large femoral head limiting the risk of dislocation, and allowing femoral bone stock preservation).
Methods
A prospective clinical trial was designed to investigate the outcome of hip resurfacing in young patients (under 30 years old). We studied 24 hips in 22 patients. Mean age at operation was 24.9 years (range 17.1–29.9). No patient was lost to follow-up.
Results
There was no revision at average follow-up of 50.6 months (44–59). Mean UCLA activity score improved from 5.5 (1–9) pre-operatively to 7.6 (1–10) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Mean Harris hip score increased from 43.9 (19–67) to 89.3 (55–100) (p < 0.001). Radiological analysis discerned no osteolysis and no implant migration.
Conclusion
The absence of short-term complications, such as mechanical failure or dislocation, is encouraging and leads us to think that mid-term results will be satisfactory. Moreover, the specific advantages of hip resurfacing (bone stock preservation, excellent stability, low risk of dislocation, large-diameter head) make the procedure a very attractive option for young subjects.
doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1555-0
PMCID: PMC3427443  PMID: 22576079
16.  The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in Men 
Background
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing patients and compare them to standard primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed during the same period of time.
Methods
One hundred and fourteen consecutive men who had a mean age of 50 years (range, 20 to 85 years) and who had undergone 120 hip resurfacing arthroplasties between 2007 and 2009 were compared to 117 consecutive men (120 hips) who had undergone a standard total hip arthroplasty during the same time period. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range, 24 to 55 months) for both groups. Outcomes evaluated included implant survivorship, hip scores, activity levels, and complication rates.
Results
In the resurfacing hip arthroplasty cohort, implant survivorship was 98% with two patients requiring a revision surgery one for femoral neck fracture and another for femoral head loosening. In comparison, implant survivorship was 99% in the standard total hip arthroplasty cohort, with 1 revision due to peri-prosthetic fracture which was successfully treated with a femoral component revision. In the resurfacing and standard hip arthroplasty cohorts, the mean post-operative Harris hip scores had improved to 96 and 94 points, respectively and were statistically similar. The resurfacing cohort had achieved a significantly higher mean post-operative University of California Activity Score (6.7 versus 5 points). There were no differences in the complication rates between the two cohorts.
Conclusion
When patients meet the appropriate selection criteria in the hands of experienced and high-volume arthroplasty surgeons, hip resurfacing provides excellent results at short- to mid-term follow-up.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-161
PMCID: PMC3652766  PMID: 23656900
17.  Porous Metal Acetabular Components Have a Low Rate of Mechanical Failure in THA After Operatively Treated Acetabular Fracture 
Background
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (OA) after acetabular fracture has been associated with a high likelihood of aseptic loosening, instability, and infection. Porous metal components may help to address the issue of loosening, but there are few data on the use of porous metal acetabular components for posttraumatic OA after acetabular fracture.
Questions/purposes
Using an institutional registry, we aimed to report (1) radiographic evidence of fixation; (2) survivorship free from revision; (3) Harris hip scores; and (4) complications and reoperations after THA with a porous metal acetabular component for posttraumatic OA in patients previously treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a displaced acetabular fracture.
Methods
Thirty primary THAs were performed with a porous metal acetabular component for the treatment of posttraumatic OA after ORIF of an acetabular fracture from 1999 through 2010; of these, 28 (93%) were available for followup at a minimum of 2 years. During that same time, 51 primary THAs were performed using other acetabular designs in patients who had previously undergone ORIF of the acetabulum. During the period in question, the general indications for use of porous metal in this setting included compromised acetabular bone stock or quality to the extent that the treating surgeon believed primary fixation with a titanium shell and screws may have been difficult to achieve. Mean age at the time of arthroplasty was 45 years (range, 23–75 years). Median time from ORIF to THA and from THA to last followup was 107 months (range, 4 months to 42 years) and 60 months (range, 25 months to 10 years), respectively. Radiographs were reviewed for this specific study to evaluate the components for evidence of osteointegration. Survivorship free from revision, hip scores, and complications were extracted from our institutional database and electronic medical record.
Results
No acetabular or femoral components were revised for aseptic loosening. Five-year survival with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 88% (95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.96). Harris hip scores improved from a median of 39 preoperatively (range, 3–87) to 82 at last followup (range, 21–100; p < 0.01). Three hips (11%) underwent resection for infection and all three had been treated with staged arthroplasty for concern of infection. Two patients (7%) experienced at least one dislocation postoperatively.
Conclusions
The short-term results of the use of porous metal acetabular components in THA for treatment of posttraumatic OA after acetabular fracture demonstrate low rates of mechanical failure. Although infection and instability remain major concerns in patients with this diagnosis seemingly regardless of the implant design used, porous metal components appear to offer a high likelihood of osseointegration in this clinical setting.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3852-y
PMCID: PMC4294918  PMID: 25106802
18.  High survival in young patients using a second generation uncemented total hip replacement 
International Orthopaedics  2011;36(6):1129-1136.
Purpose
Whilst excellent long-term results with contemporary uncemented stems have been reported for total hip arthroplasty in young patients, the survival rates for the whole reconstruction are often compromised by high failure rates on the acetabular site due to peri-acetabular osteolysis and accelerated wear.
Methods
In patients 60 years old or younger, we retrospectively reviewed the results at a minimum of ten years of 89 consecutive uncemented total hip replacements in 88 patients using the press-fit Fitmore acetabular component in combination with the CLS Spotorno stem and a 28-mm Metasul metal-on-metal articulation or a 28-mm alumina ceramic on conventional polyethylene bearing. The mean age at the time of surgery was 49 years (range, 25–60). The mean clinical and radiological follow-up was 12 years (range, 10–15).
Results
Six patients (six hips) died and two patients (two hips) were lost to follow-up. Five hips were revised: one for deep infection, one for peri-prosthetic femoral fracture, and one for aseptic stem loosening. In two hips an isolated revision of the acetabular liner was performed (one for recurrent dislocation and one for unexplained pain). No revision was performed for accelerated wear, osteolysis or aseptic loosening of the acetabular shell. We could not detect peri-acetabular osteolysis visible on plain radiographs in those hips evaluated radiographically. The Kaplan-Meier survival with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 94% (95% confidence interval, 86–97) at 12 years.
Conclusions
The survival rates and the radiological outcomes with this implant combination in this young and active patient group are encouraging when compared to the results reported for other uncemented cups in this age group.
doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1399-z
PMCID: PMC3353086  PMID: 22113735
19.  A randomised controlled trial of total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint 
Background
Hip replacement (arthroplasty) surgery is a highly successful treatment for patients with severe symptomatic arthritis of the hip joint. For older patients, several designs of Total Hip Arthroplasty have shown excellent results in terms of both function and value for money. However, in younger more active patients, there is approximately a 50% failure rate at 25 years for traditional implants. Hip resurfacing is a relatively new arthroplasty technique. In a recent review of the literature on resurfacing arthroplasty it was concluded that the short-term functional results appear promising but some potential early disadvantages were identified, including the risk of femoral neck fracture and collapse of the head of the femur. The aim of the current study is to assess whether there is a difference in functional hip scores at one year post-operation between Total Hip Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Secondary aims include assessment of complication rates for both procedures as well cost effectiveness.
Methods/design
All patients medically fit for surgery and deemed suitable for a resurfacing arthroplasty are eligible to take part in this study. A randomisation sequence will be produced and administered independently. After consenting, all patients will be clinically reviewed and hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed through questionnaires. The allocated surgery will then be performed with the preferred technique of the surgeon. Six weeks post-operation hip function will be assessed and complications recorded. Three, six and 12 months post-operation hip function, quality of life and physical activity level will be assessed. Additional information about patients' out-of-pocket expenses will also be collected.
Trial registration
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33354155
UKCLRN portfolio ID 4093
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-11-8
PMCID: PMC2826290  PMID: 20074324
20.  Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index 
Background
The importance of appropriately selecting patients based on factors such as bone mineral density, body mass index, age, gender, and femoral component size has been demonstrated in many studies as an aid in decreasing the rate of revisions and improving the outcomes for patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA); however, there are few published studies quantitatively specifying the potential risk factors that affect early femoral component failures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the specific causes of early femoral component failures in hip resurfacing separately and more carefully in order to develop strategies to prevent these failures, rather than excluding groups of patients from this surgical procedure.
Methods
This retrospective study included 373 metal-on-metal HRAs performed by a single surgeon using the vascular sparing posterior minimally invasive surgical approach. The average length of follow-up was 30 ± 6 months. In order to understand the causes of early femoral failure rate, a multivariable logistic regression model was generated in order to analyze the effects of bone mineral density (T-score), gender, diagnosis, body mass index, femoral implant fixation type, age, and femoral component size.
Results
The average post-operative Harris hip score was 92 ± 11 points and the average post-operative UCLA score was 7 ± 2 points. There were three revisions due to femoral neck fracture and two for femoral component loosening. These occurred in two female and three male patients. In the multi-variable regression model, only T-score and body mass index showed significant effects on the failure rate of femoral components. Patients with a lower T-score and a higher body mass index had a significantly increased risk of early femoral component failure.
Conclusion
We recommend that dual energy x-ray absorptiometry scan T-score tests should be routinely performed on all hip resurfacing patients pre-operatively. If a patient has a low T-score (≤ -1.5), consideration should be given to additional precautions or treatments to alleviate his or her risk, especially when the patient has a higher body mass index (≥ 29 kg/m2).
doi:10.1186/1749-799X-7-1
PMCID: PMC3284462  PMID: 22233783
21.  The Prevalence of Groin Pain After Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty and Total Hip Resurfacing 
Background
Groin pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total hip resurfacing arthroplasty can be troubling for patients and surgeons. Potential sources of pain include infection, loosening, metal hypersensitivity, or impingement of bony structures or the iliopsoas tendon.
Questions/purposes
We compared the rate of groin pain after THA or hip resurfacing using metal-on-metal to those of other bearing surfaces.
Methods
We identified 347 (334 patients) primary total hip (n = 301) or resurfacing (n = 46) arthroplasties. Complete preoperative, operative, and postoperative data were available for 282 hips. We retrospectively reviewed the charts for the presence or absence of groin pain at a minimum of 1 year after surgery with a specific focus on etiologic factors. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 14 months; range 12 to 24 months).
Results
The rate of groin pain was 7% (15 of 217 patients) after THA with conventional bearing surfaces, 15% (4 of 26 patients) with metal-on-metal THA and 18% (7 of 39 patients) with total hip resurfacing. Younger patients were more likely to report groin pain postoperatively and more likely to have metal-on-metal bearing surfaces.
Conclusions
Our data at short-term followup suggest increased rates of groin pain after metal-on-metal THA or resurfacing arthroplasty versus THA using polyethylene or ceramic bearing surfaces. The reasons are not clear but they appear to be associated with younger age. Potential factors include impingement, activity level and possibly higher expectations for patients receiving metal-on-metal bearing surfaces that may make those patients more likely to report postoperative pain.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1356-y
PMCID: PMC2919872  PMID: 20425538
22.  Is it Time for Cementless Hip Resurfacing? 
HSS Journal  2012;8(3):245-250.
Background
Metal-on-metal bearing with cemented femoral component and cementless acetabular fixation is the current standard in surface replacement arthroplasty (RSA) of the hip. Because of concerns about the long-term survivorship of cemented stems in conventional hip arthroplasty, it seems logical to achieve cementless fixation on the femoral side with RSA.
Questions/Purposes
The goals of this review were to evaluate clinical and radiological data reported from previously published cementless RSA series. In addition, we intend to review author’s preliminary experience with Conserve Plus cementless devices specifically assessing the clinical outcomes, the complications rate, the survivorship, and the metallic ions levels measured in follow-up.
Methods
A references search was done with PubMed using the key words “cementless hip resurfacing”, “cementless hip resurfacing prosthesis”, and “femoral cementless hip resurfacing”. Additionally, the clinical outcomes, the complications rate, the survivorship, and the metallic ions levels were measured in 94 cementless Conserve Plus© devices in 90 patients (68 males and 22 females) with a mean age of 41.1 years (18–59). Mean follow-up was 13.1 months (8–16).
Results
No revision was performed during the observed follow-up. Neither radiological signs of loosening nor neck narrowing >10% were evident. Chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood samples rose respectively from 0.53 μg/l (0.1–1.7) to 1.7 μg/l (0.6–2.9) and from 0.54 μg/l (0.1–1.4) to 1.98 μg/l (0.1–2.8).
Conclusions
Cementless “fit and fill” femoral-side fixation, which seems to be potentially evolved and design-related, should be considered for future hip-resurfacing device generations.
doi:10.1007/s11420-012-9295-7
PMCID: PMC3470669  PMID: 24082868
hip resurfacing; cementless device; cement; bone necrosis
23.  Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study  
Objectives To examine mortality and revision rates among patients with osteoarthritis undergoing hip arthroplasty and to compare these rates between patients undergoing cemented or uncemented procedures and to compare outcomes between men undergoing stemmed total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacing.
Design Cohort study.
Setting National Joint Registry.
Population About 275 000 patient records.
Main outcome measures Hip arthroplasty procedures were linked to the time to any subsequent mortality or revision (implant failure). Flexible parametric survival analysis methods were used to analyse time to mortality and also time to revision. Comparisons between procedure groups were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and complexity.
Results As there were large baseline differences in the characteristics of patients receiving cemented, uncemented, or resurfacing procedures, unadjusted comparisons are inappropriate. Multivariable survival analyses identified a higher mortality rate for patients undergoing cemented compared with uncemented total hip replacement (adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.16); conversely, there was a lower revision rate with cemented procedures (0.53, 0.50 to 0.57). These translate to small predicted differences in population averaged absolute survival probability at all time points. For example, compared with the uncemented group, at eight years after surgery the predicted probability of death in the cemented group was 0.013 higher (0.007 to 0.019) and the predicted probability of revision was 0.015 lower (0.012 to 0.017). In multivariable analyses restricted to men, there was a higher mortality rate in the cemented group and the uncemented group compared with the Birmingham hip resurfacing group. In terms of revision, the Birmingham hip resurfacings had a similar revision rate to uncemented total hip replacements. Both uncemented total hip replacements and Birmingham hip resurfacings had a higher revision rate than cemented total hip replacements.
Conclusions There is a small but significant increased risk of revision with uncemented rather than cemented total hip replacement, and a small but significant increased risk of death with cemented procedures. It is not known whether these are causal relations or caused by residual confounding. Compared with uncemented and cemented total hip replacements, Birmingham hip resurfacing has a significantly lower risk of death in men of all ages. Previously, only adjusted analyses of hip implant revision rates have been used to recommend and justify use of cheaper cemented total hip implants. Our investigations additionally consider mortality rates and suggest a potentially higher mortality rate with cemented total hip replacements, which merits further investigation.
doi:10.1136/bmj.e3319
PMCID: PMC3375206  PMID: 22700782
24.  Squeaking in Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasties 
Background
While most reports of audible squeaking in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have focused on ceramic bearings, squeaking can occur in metal-on-metal bearings and may be an important clinical complication to consider during patient followup.
Questions/purposes
We retrospectively identified 10 patients with squeaking metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.
Methods
This study reports acetabular inclination angles and patient satisfaction, and describes two patients with squeaking resurfacings: one was revised and the other is pending revision. The minimum followup time in all 10 patients was 6 months (mean, 52 months; range, 6 to 79 months).
Results
The average time to onset was 11 months (range, 3–22 months). Hips started squeaking after bending, heavy activity, or prolonged periods of walking and the squeaking resolved within a week in all episodes. All hips except one were in the range of 45° ± 10° inclination (median, 48°). One patient who reported squeaking at 6 weeks was revised 6 years postoperatively for a cystic mass. A second patient, now 76 months postoperative, who reports squeaking weekly after walking long distances, is scheduled for revision due to high serum metal ion levels and osteolysis in DeLee and Charnley Zone 1 of the acetabulum.
Conclusions
We cannot conclude whether these complications are related to squeaking. Most patients with squeaking hip resurfacings do not appear to have an adverse response or clinical complication after 6 years. Squeaking in hip resurfacings is a short-term episode that could not be related to acetabular component inclination or decreased patient satisfaction.
Level of Evidence
Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1344-2
PMCID: PMC2919861  PMID: 20383616
25.  High Prevalence of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris in Small-headed ASR™ Hips 
Background
There has been increasing concern of metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements regarding adverse reactions to metal debris. Information regarding prevalence and risk factors for these adverse reactions is scarce.
Questions/purposes
The primary purposes of our study were to determine (1) the prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris among patients who received small-headed (< 50 mm) Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) prostheses in hip resurfacing procedures or the ASR™ XL prostheses during THAs at our institution, and (2) the risk factors for adverse reactions to metal debris and if they are different in hip resurfacing replacements compared with THAs?
Methods
Small-headed ASR™ prostheses were used in 482 operations (424 patients) at our institution. After the recall of ASR™ prostheses, we established a systematic screening program to find patients with adverse reactions to metal debris. At a mean of 4.9 years (range, 0.2–8.1 years) postoperatively, 379 patients (435 hips) attended a screening program, which consisted of clinical evaluation, whole blood cobalt and chromium measurements, and cross-sectional imaging.
Results
At followup, 162 hips (34%) have been revised. The majority (85%) were revised owing to causes related to adverse reactions to metal debris. The 7-year survivorship was 51% for the ASR™ hip replacement cohort and 38% for the ASR™ XL THA cohort, respectively. Reduced cup coverage was an independent risk factor for adverse reactions to metal debris in both cohorts. High preoperative ROM, use of the Corail® stem, and female gender were associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions to metal debris only in patients undergoing THA.
Conclusions
Adverse reactions to metal debris are common with small-headed ASR™ prostheses. Risk factors for these adverse reactions differ between hip resurfacing procedures and THAs. Our results suggest a more complicated failure mechanism in THAs than in hip resurfacing procedures.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3023-6
PMCID: PMC3734395  PMID: 23637059

Results 1-25 (1369003)