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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 8/2015

01-08-2015 | Symposium: Sex Differences in Musculoskeletal Disease and Science

Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Authors: Bryan D. Haughom, MD, Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Michael D. Hellman, MD, Joshua J. Jacobs, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 8/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender.

Questions/purposes

This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Methods

Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method.

Results

Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71–11.98]; p < 0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2–7.5], p = 0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21–4.58], p < 0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25–2.78], p < 0.001) after primary MoM HRA.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications).

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.
Literature
1.
Alberta Hip Improvement Project, MacKenzie JR, O’Connor GJ, Marshall DA, Faris PD, Dort LC, Khong H, Parker RD, Werle JR, Beaupre LA, Frank CB. Functional outcomes for 2 years comparing hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;5:750–757.e2.
2.
Amstutz HC, Wisk LE, Le Duff MJ. Sex as a patient selection criterion for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;2:198–208.CrossRef
3.
Bosker BH, Ettema HB, Boomsma MF, Kollen BJ, Maas M, Verheyen CC. High incidence of pseudotumour formation after large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;6:755–761.CrossRef
4.
Canadian Arthroplasty Society. The Canadian Arthroplasty Society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. An analysis of 2773 hips. Bone Joint J. 2013;8:1045–1051.
5.
Carrothers AD, Gilbert RE, Jaiswal A, Richardson JB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;10:1344–1350.CrossRef
6.
Cooper HJ, Deirmengian C, Rodriguez J, Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Paprosky WG. Taper corrosion presenting as late instability following metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. 24th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Dallas, TX, November 2014.
7.
Cowan J, Lozano-Calderon S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;8:1693–1699.CrossRef
8.
Cross MB, Nam D, Mayman DJ. Ideal femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty balances stability and volumetric wear. HSS J. 2012;3:270–274.CrossRef
9.
de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL acetabular system and the ASR hip resurfacing system: An analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;24:2287–2293.
10.
Fox CM, Bergin KM, Kelly GE, McCoy GF, Ryan AG, Quinlan JF. MRI findings following metal on metal hip arthroplasty and their relationship with metal ion levels and acetabular inclination angles. J Arthroplasty. 2014;8:1647–1652.CrossRef
11.
Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Doll H, Gill HS, Murray DW. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;12:1566–1574.CrossRef
12.
Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Oxford Hip and Knee Group, Murray DW, Gill HS. The relationship between head-neck ratio and pseudotumour formation in metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;11:1527–1534.CrossRef
13.
Granchi D, Cenni E, Trisolino G, Giunti A, Baldini N. Sensitivity to implant materials in patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;2:257–264.CrossRef
14.
Gross TP, Liu F. Comparative study between patients with osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;6:735–744.
15.
Gross TP, Liu F. Incidence of adverse wear reactions in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a single surgeon series of 2,600 cases. Hip Int. 2013;3:250–258.CrossRef
16.
Hart AJ, Matthies A, Henckel J, Ilo K, Skinner J, Noble PC. Understanding why metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties fail: a comparison between patients with well-functioning and revised Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasties. AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;4:e22.
17.
Hug KT, Watters TS, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. 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.
18.
Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, Porter ML, Deehan DJ, Reed MR. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using national joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;6:746–754.CrossRef
19.
Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Nargol AV. Articular surface replacement of the hip: a prospective single-surgeon series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;1:28–37.CrossRef
20.
Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Dislocation of primary total hip arthroplasty with 36 and 40-mm femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:153–155.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Low early and late dislocation rates with 36- and 40-mm heads in patients at high risk for dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:439–443.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
22.
23.
Langton DJ, Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Natu S, Blain P, Jefferson RD, Rushton S, Nargol AV. The clinical implications of elevated blood metal ion concentrations in asymptomatic patients with MoM hip resurfacings: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2012-001541.
24.
Leopold SS, Beadling L, Dobbs MB, Gebhardt MC, Lotke PA, Manner PA, Rimnac CM, Wongworawat MD. Fairness to all: gender and sex in scientific reporting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:391–392.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
25.
Lubbeke A, Rothman KJ, Garavaglia G, Barea C, Christofilopoulos P, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P. Strong association between smoking and the risk of revision in a cohort study of patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2014;6:762–768.CrossRef
26.
Marshall DA, Pykerman K, Werle J, Lorenzetti D, Wasylak T, Noseworthy T, Dick DA, O’Connor G, Sundaram A, Heintzbergen S, Frank C. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2217–2230.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
McBryde CW, Theivendran K, Thomas AM, Treacy RB, Pynsent PB. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;1:105–112.CrossRef
28.
Migaud H, Jobin A, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Laffargue P, Duquennoy A. Cementless metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age: comparison with a matched control group using ceramic-on-polyethylene after a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2004;8(Suppl 3):23–28.
29.
Milavec-Puretic V, Orlic D, Marusic A. Sensitivity to metals in 40 patients with failed hip endoprosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;6:383–386.CrossRef
30.
Munro JT, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS. High complication rate after revision of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:523–528.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
33.
Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CL, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;7:847–851.CrossRef
34.
Rogers BA, Garbedian S, Kuchinad RA, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE. Total hip arthroplasty for adult hip dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;19:1809–1821.CrossRef
35.
Singh G, Meyer H, Ruetschi M, Chamaon K, Feuerstein B, Lohmann CH. Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a page in orthopedic history? J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;11:3320–3326.
36.
Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW, 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;9822:1199–1204.CrossRef
37.
van der Weegen W, Sijbesma T, Hoekstra HJ, Brakel K, Pilot P, Nelissen RG. Treatment of pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing based on magnetic resonance imaging, metal ion levels and symptoms. J Arthroplasty. 2014;2:416–421.CrossRef
38.
Win HL, Yang S, Wimalaratne HK, Weihua X, Shunan Y, Ze R. Chinese experience with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2012;6:968–975.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review
Authors
Bryan D. Haughom, MD
Brandon J. Erickson, MD
Michael D. Hellman, MD
Joshua J. Jacobs, MD
Publication date
01-08-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4227-8

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 8/2015 Go to the issue

Editorial

Editorial: Why Some Authors Make Bad Choices—Peer Review for Hire and Other Sad Stories

Basic Research

Does Blast Medium Affect Heterotopic Ossification in a Blast-amputation Model?

Clinical Research

Developmental Dislocation of the Hip Successfully Treated by Preoperative Traction and Medial Open Reduction: A 22-year Mean Followup

CORR Insights

CORR Insights®: Does Patient Sex Affect the Rate of Mortality and Complications After Spine Surgery? A Systematic Review

Symposium: Sex Differences in Musculoskeletal Disease and Science

Sex Differences in Cartilage Topography and Orientation of the Developing Acetabulum: Implications for Hip Preservation Surgery

Symposium: Sex Differences in Musculoskeletal Disease and Science

Are There Sex Differences in Knee Cartilage Composition and Walking Mechanics in Healthy and Osteoarthritis Populations?