Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 1/2016

01-03-2016 | Hip: Metal-on-Metal (J Cooper, Section Editor)

Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls

Authors: Jacob A. Haynes, Jeffrey B. Stambough, Robert L. Barrack, Denis Nam

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) remains a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in appropriately selected, active adults with degenerative hip disease. However, orthopedic surgeons are facing a number of scenarios where revision of one or both components of an SRA is indicated. Indications for revision vary and impact the potential outcomes of conversion of a SRA to THA. While clinical outcomes are generally favorable, a growing body of data illustrates patients who undergo conversion of a SRA to THA to be at increased risk of requiring a repeat revision surgery and experiencing functional outcomes inferior to that of a primary THA. The results of patients undergoing conversion of a SRA to THA highlight the need for careful patient selection, thorough preoperative counseling, and technical precision when performing a SRA. Furthermore, a systematic approach to the failed SRA is necessary to ensure optimal clinical results.
Literature
1.
McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1966;48(2):245–59.
2.
Bozic KJ et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1614–20.CrossRefPubMed
3.
McMinn D, Daniel J. History and modern concepts in surface replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220(2):239–51.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Buergi ML, Walter WL. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the Australian experience. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 Suppl 3):61–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Klein GR et al. Return to athletic activity after total hip arthroplasty. Consensus guidelines based on a survey of the Hip Society and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(2):171–5.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2004;86(2):177–84.CrossRef
8.
Schmalzried TP et al. Long-duration metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(3):322–31.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, DiCesare PE. Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6(4):198–203.PubMed
10.
Anissian HL et al. The wear pattern in metal-on-metal hip prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;58(6):673–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Silva M, Heisel C, Schmalzried TP. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:53–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Leslie I et al. Effect of bearing size on the long-term wear, wear debris, and ion levels of large diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements—an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;87(1):163–72.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Peters CL et al. Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 Suppl 2):140–4.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cuckler JM et al. Large versus small femoral heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):41–4.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jolley MN, Salvati EA, Brown GC. Early results and complications of surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):366–77.PubMed
16.
Bogoch ER, Fornasier VL, Capello WN. The femoral head remnant in resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;167:92–105.PubMed
17.
Amstutz HC et al. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663–71.CrossRefPubMed
18.
deSouza RM et al. Metal ion levels following resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: serial results over a ten-year period. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2010;92(12):1642–7.CrossRef
19.
Daniel J et al. Blood and urine metal ion levels in young and active patients after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: four-year results of a prospective longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2007;89(2):169–73.CrossRef
20.
Kwon YM et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(4):444–50.PubMed
21.
McGrory B et al. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(5):306–14.PubMed
22.
Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry annual report. Adelaide: AOA; 2009. p. 20–44.
23.
Hug KT et al. The withdrawn ASR THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):430–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
24.
National joint registry for England and Wales. 9th annual report. NJR. 2012.
25.
26.
Marshall DA et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(7):2217–30.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
27.
Carrothers AD et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2010;92(10):1344–50.CrossRef
28.
Canadian Arthroplasty S. The Canadian arthroplasty society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. An analysis of 2773 hips. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(8):1045–51.CrossRef
29.
Anglin C et al. Hip resurfacing femoral neck fracture influenced by valgus placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:71–9.PubMed
30.
Coulter G et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(3):315–21.CrossRef
31.
Murray DW et al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(9):1180–6.CrossRef
32.
Treacy RB et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2011;93(1):27–33.CrossRef
33.
34.
Hing C, Back D, Shimmin A. Hip resurfacing: indications, results, and conclusions. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:171–8.PubMed
35.
36.
Mont MA et al. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:63–70.PubMed
37.
Gross TP, Liu F. Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:1.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
38.
Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Annual Report 2010. 2010.
39.
40.
Langton DJ et al. The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90(9):1143–51.CrossRef
41.
Amstutz HC, Wisk LE, Le Duff MJ. Sex as a patient selection criterion for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(2):198–208.CrossRefPubMed
42.
McBryde CW et al. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):105–12.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Pandit H et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90(7):847–51.CrossRef
44.
Canadian Hip Resurfacing Study, G. A survey on the prevalence of pseudotumors with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Canadian academic centers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(2):118–21.
45.
Arican P et al. The role of bone SPECT/CT in the evaluation of painful joint prostheses. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36(9):931–40.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Walter LR et al. Distribution of chromium and cobalt ions in various blood fractions after resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6):814–21.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Parvizi J et al. Periprosthetic infection: what are the diagnostic challenges? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88 Suppl 4:138–47.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Wyles CC et al. Utility of synovial fluid aspirations in failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(5):818–23.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Lombardi Jr AV et al. The hip society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(11 Suppl A):14–8.CrossRef
50.
MHRA, Medical Device Alert MDA/2010/033: all metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements. 2010.
51.
Hart AJ et al. Surveillance of patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and total hip prostheses: a prospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between blood metal ion levels and implant failure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(13):1091–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Nam D, Barrack RL, Potter HG. What are the advantages and disadvantages of imaging modalities to diagnose wear-related corrosion problems? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(12):3665–73.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
53.
Lieberman JR et al. Treatment of the infected total hip arthroplasty with a two-stage reimplantation protocol. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;301:205–12.PubMed
54.
Cooper HJ, Della Valle CJ. The two-stage standard in revision total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):84–7.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Sharma AK et al. Two-stage exchange for infected resurfacing arthroplasty: use of a novel cement spacer technique. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6):976.PubMed
56.
George DA, Konan S, Haddad FS. Single-stage hip and knee exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2015.
57.
Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):735–41.CrossRefPubMed
58.•
Su EP, Su SL. Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):88–91. A recent case series demonstrating the impact of preoperative diagnosis on outcomes following conversion of a surface replacement arthroplasty.CrossRefPubMed
59.•
Pritchett JW. One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):219–24. A recent study assessing the outcomes of 90 single component revisions for failed hip resurfacing due to adverse reaction to metal debris.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA. Revision of failed hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty rapidly relieves pain and improves function in the early post operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:88.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
61.
Whiteside LA. Surgical technique: gluteus maximus and tensor fascia lata transfer for primary deficiency of the abductors of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(2):645–53.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
62.
Fehm MN et al. Repair of a deficient abductor mechanism with Achilles tendon allograft after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(13):2305–11.CrossRefPubMed
63.
64.•
Wong JM, et al. What is the rerevision rate after revising a hip resurfacing arthroplasty? Analysis from the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. This registry based study illustrates the high re-revision rate after revision of a surface replacement arthroplasty.
65.
Eswaramoorthy VK, Biant LC, Field RE. Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2009;91(11):1454–8.CrossRef
66.
Lainiala O et al. Revision of metal-on-metal hip prostheses results in marked reduction of blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(7):2305–13.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls
Authors
Jacob A. Haynes
Jeffrey B. Stambough
Robert L. Barrack
Denis Nam
Publication date
01-03-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9326-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 1/2016 Go to the issue

Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)

Planning software and patient-specific instruments in shoulder arthroplasty

Hip: Metal-on-Metal (J Cooper, Section Editor)

Revision for taper corrosion at the head-neck junction: pearls and pitfalls

Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)

Total shoulder arthroplasty: are the humeral components getting shorter?

Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)

The arthritic glenoid: anatomy and arthroplasty designs

Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty—current results and designs

Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)

Safety and efficacy of arthroscopy in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty