Skip to main content
Top
Published in: MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY 3/2017

01-12-2017 | Original Article

What should I expect from my recalled Adept Hip Resurfacing?

Authors: Matteo Cadossi, Silvio Terrando, Andrea Sambri, Giuseppe Tedesco, Antonio Mazzotti, Barbara Bordini, Dalila De Pasquale, Cesare Faldini

Published in: MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

“My Hip Resurfacing (HR) has been recalled. What will happen to me?” This is the question of every patient who underwent an implant recall, a highly stressful event for both patients and physicians. Triggered by a 11.64% failure rate at 7 years, a recall process started for Adept HR with head diameter less than 48 mm. We report our experience in the recall process of 40 patients with the above-mentioned components. One patient underwent revision surgery due to an adverse reaction to metal debris at 5-year follow-up. None of the patients were scheduled for revision, with an estimated survival rate of 97.6% at 7 years. Implants were well positioned with an average acetabular inclination angle of 37°. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were below the safety threshold of clinical relevance. Functional scores were excellent. In the case of a well-positioned device with normal ion levels, a good performance of the implant is generally observed. Even if we experienced a very low revision rate, this may certainly get worse over time since not all possible failures are predictable, thus requiring a careful periodic follow-up.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ et al (2007) Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:159–164PubMed Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ et al (2007) Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:159–164PubMed
2.
go back to reference Su EP, Sheehan M, Su SL (2010) Comparison of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 25(2):325–329CrossRefPubMed Su EP, Sheehan M, Su SL (2010) Comparison of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 25(2):325–329CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Bunn A, Colwell CW Jr, D’Lima DD (2014) Effect of head diameter on passive and active dynamic hip dislocation. J Orthop Res 32(11):1525–1531CrossRefPubMed Bunn A, Colwell CW Jr, D’Lima DD (2014) Effect of head diameter on passive and active dynamic hip dislocation. J Orthop Res 32(11):1525–1531CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Willis-Owen CA, Atkinson HD, Oakeshott RD (2011) Bone mineral density in the femoral neck increases after hip resurfacing: a cohort with five-year follow-up. Int Orthop 35(9):1303–1307CrossRefPubMed Willis-Owen CA, Atkinson HD, Oakeshott RD (2011) Bone mineral density in the femoral neck increases after hip resurfacing: a cohort with five-year follow-up. Int Orthop 35(9):1303–1307CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ et al (2006) Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(5):592–600CrossRefPubMed Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ et al (2006) Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(5):592–600CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ et al (2010) Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(3):356–361CrossRefPubMed Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ et al (2010) Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(3):356–361CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Jameson SS et al (2011) Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):164–171CrossRefPubMed Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Jameson SS et al (2011) Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):164–171CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P et al (2008) Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(7):847–851CrossRefPubMed Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P et al (2008) Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(7):847–851CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H et al (2014) Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J 96-B(10):1298–1306CrossRefPubMed Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H et al (2014) Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J 96-B(10):1298–1306CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Shears E et al (2011) Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Shears E et al (2011) Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):27–33CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB et al (2013) The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged <50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J 95-B(9):1172–1177CrossRefPubMed Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB et al (2013) The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged <50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J 95-B(9):1172–1177CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H et al (2012) The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(9):1180–1186CrossRefPubMed Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H et al (2012) The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94(9):1180–1186CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ et al (2004) Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:87–93CrossRef Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ et al (2004) Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:87–93CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Hing CB, Young DA, Dalziel RE et al (2007) Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1019–1024CrossRefPubMed Hing CB, Young DA, Dalziel RE et al (2007) Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(8):1019–1024CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Madanat R, Hussey DK, Donahue GS et al (2016) Early lessons from a worldwide, multicenter, followup study of the recalled articular surface replacement hip system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):166–174CrossRefPubMed Madanat R, Hussey DK, Donahue GS et al (2016) Early lessons from a worldwide, multicenter, followup study of the recalled articular surface replacement hip system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):166–174CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Pahuta M, Smolders JM, van Susante JL et al (2016) Blood metal ion levels are not a useful test for adverse reactions to metal debris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 5(9):379–386CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pahuta M, Smolders JM, van Susante JL et al (2016) Blood metal ion levels are not a useful test for adverse reactions to metal debris: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint Res 5(9):379–386CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
20.
go back to reference Daniel J, Ziaee H, Salama A et al (2006) The effect of the diameter of metal-on-metal bearings on systemic exposure to cobalt and chromium. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(4):443–448CrossRefPubMed Daniel J, Ziaee H, Salama A et al (2006) The effect of the diameter of metal-on-metal bearings on systemic exposure to cobalt and chromium. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(4):443–448CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Brooks PJ (2016) Hip resurfacing: a large, US single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J 98-B(1 Suppl A):10–13CrossRefPubMed Brooks PJ (2016) Hip resurfacing: a large, US single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J 98-B(1 Suppl A):10–13CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R et al (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220CrossRefPubMed Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R et al (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Kim PR, Beaule PE, Dunbar M et al (2011) Cobalt and chromium levels in blood and urine following hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the conserve plus implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 2):107–117CrossRefPubMed Kim PR, Beaule PE, Dunbar M et al (2011) Cobalt and chromium levels in blood and urine following hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the conserve plus implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 2):107–117CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
What should I expect from my recalled Adept Hip Resurfacing?
Authors
Matteo Cadossi
Silvio Terrando
Andrea Sambri
Giuseppe Tedesco
Antonio Mazzotti
Barbara Bordini
Dalila De Pasquale
Cesare Faldini
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 2035-5106
Electronic ISSN: 2035-5114
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0476-x

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY 3/2017 Go to the issue