Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-02-2014 | Symposium: 2013 Hip Society Proceedings

High Complication Rate After Revision of Large-head Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Authors: Jacob T. Munro, MBChB, Bassam A. Masri, MD, Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc, Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have indicated poor outcomes in patients having revision of hip resurfacing resulting from adverse local tissue reaction and pseudotumor.

Questions/purposes

We reviewed all patients at our institution who had revision of failed large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty to determine (1) complications including reoperations; (2) radiologic outcomes; and (3) changes in serum ions after removal of the metal bearing.

Methods

From our research database, we identified 32 hips in 30 patients. Revisions were performed through a posterior approach; 17 were performed with a titanium fiber-metal shell and 15 with a porous tantalum shell, and 29 of the 32 revisions were performed with large (36- or 40-mm) femoral heads. Clinical records were reviewed and interviews conducted in the clinic or by telephone. Nineteen hips had a pre- or intraoperative diagnosis of adverse local tissue reaction, three had deep infection, and 10 had loosening of the acetabular component.

Results

Major complications occurred in 12 (38%) of the 32 revisions. Nine of 32 hips (28%) sustained dislocations. Four of 17 fiber-metal acetabular components failed to ingrow; none of the porous tantalum cups failed to ingrow. Seven repeat revisions were performed in six patients: three for acetabular loosening, three for recurrent dislocation, and one for recurrent adverse local tissue reaction. The mean WOMAC pain score was 78 of 100 and the function score was 83 of 100. Metal ion levels decreased after revision in most patients.

Conclusions

As a result of the high rate of failure of the fiber metal cups, we have elected to use an enhanced fixation surface with a high-porosity cup for revision of these cases. We observed a high rate of dislocation despite the use of 36-mm and 40-mm heads.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Antoniou J, Zukor DJ, Mwale F, Minarik W, Petit A, Huk OL. Metal ion levels in the blood of patients after hip resurfacing: a comparison between twenty-eight and thirty-six-millimeter-head metal-on-metal prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 3):142–148.PubMedCrossRef

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide, Australia: AOA; 2010.

Bolland BJ, Culliford DJ, Langton DJ, Millington JPS, Arden NK, Latham JM. High failure rates with a large-diameter hybrid metal-on-metal total hip replacement: clinical, radiological and retrieval analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:608–615.PubMedCrossRef

Bosker BH, Ettema HB, Boomsma MF, Kollen BJ, Maas M, Verheyen CCPM. High incidence of pseudotumour formation after large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:755–761.PubMedCrossRef

Brodner W, Bitzan P, Meisinger V, Kaider A, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Kotz R. Serum cobalt levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2168–2173.PubMed

Campbell P, Ebramzadeh E, Nelson S, Takamura K, De Smet K, Amstutz HC. Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2321–2327.PubMedCrossRef

Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don’t do. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:102–107.PubMedCrossRef

Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:18–27.PubMedCrossRef

de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Prosser GH, Graves SE, Davidson DC, Stanford TE. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:72–76.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dorr LD, Luckett M, Conaty JP. Total hip arthroplasties in patients younger than 45 years. A nine- to ten-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;260:215–219.PubMed

11.

Engh CA, Ho H, Engh CA. Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: does early clinical outcome justify the chance of an adverse local tissue reaction? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:406–412.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.PubMed

13.

FDA. Recalls specific to metal-on-metal hip implant systems. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241770.htm. Accessed February 12, 2011.

14.

FDA USA. Concerns about metal-on-metal hip implants. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241604.htm. Accessed March 20, 2013.

15.

Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Greidanus NV, Bohm ER, Petrak MJ, Valle Della CJ, Gross AE. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Dislocation in revision THA: do large heads (36 and 40 mm) result in reduced dislocation rates in a randomized clinical trial? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:351–356.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:318–325.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Grammatopolous G, Pandit H, Kwon Y-M, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1019–1024.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hamadouche M, Biau DJ, Huten D, Musset T, Gaucher F. The use of a cemented dual mobility socket to treat recurrent dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3248–3254.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, Sabah SA, McRobbie D, Henckel J, Cobb JP, Skinner JA, Mitchell AW. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:317–325.PubMed

20.

Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1183–1191.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Langton D, Sidaginamale R, Lord J, Nargol AVF, Joyce TJ. Taper junction failure in large-diameter metal-on-metal bearings. Bone Joint Res. 2012;1:56–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

22.

Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Gandhi JN, Sidaginamale R, Mereddy P, Lord J, Nargol AVF. Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1011–1016.PubMedCrossRef

23.

London Laboratory Services Group, Trace Elements Laboratory; London, Ontario, Canada 2008: Available at: http://www.lhsc.on.ca/lab/metals/icpms1.htm. Accessed February 12, 2011.

24.

Mabilleau G, Kwon Y-M, Pandit H, Murray DW, Sabokbar A. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of periprosthetic biological reactions. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:734–747.PubMedCrossRef

25.

National Joint Registry for England and Wales. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 8th Annual Report 2011. Available at: www.njrcentre.org.uk. Accessed February 20, 2011.

26.

New Zealand Joint Registry. Eleven Year Report. Christchurch, New Zealand: NZOA; October 2010.

27.

Noble PC, Durrani SK, Usrey MM, Mathis KB, Bardakos NV. Constrained cups appear incapable of meeting the demands of revision THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:1907–1916.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, Mclardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CLM, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:847–851.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW, on behalf of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;379:1199–1204.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:87–90.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Sun ZL, Wataha JC, Hanks CT. Effects of metal ions on osteoblast-like cell metabolism and differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;34:29–37.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Thompson GJ, Puleo DA. Effects of sublethal metal ion concentrations on osteogenic cells derived from bone marrow stromal cells. J Appl Biomater. 1995;6:249–258.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Williams JT, Ragland PS, Clarke S. Constrained components for the unstable hip following total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop. 2007;31:273–277.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

34.

Zicat B, Engh CA, Gokcen E. Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:432–439.PubMed

Title: High Complication Rate After Revision of Large-head Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
Authors: Jacob T. Munro, MBChB
Bassam A. Masri, MD
Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc
Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc
Publication date: 01-02-2014
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2979-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

High Complication Rate After Revision of Large-head Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

High Survivorship With a Titanium-encased Alumina Ceramic Bearing for Total Hip Arthroplasty

Short-term Wear Evaluation of Thin Acetabular Liners on 36-mm Femoral Heads

Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Modular Fluted, Tapered Stems

Periprosthetic Fractures Around a Cementless Hydroxyapatite-coated Implant: A New Fracture Pattern Is Described

CORR Insights®: Assessing Shoulder Motion in Children: Age Limitations to Mallet and ABC Loops

What Causes Unexplained Pain in Patients With Metal-on metal Hip Devices? A Retrieval, Histologic, and Imaging Analysis