Literature DB >> 15577471

Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: the concerns.

S J MacDonald1.   

Abstract

The metal-on-metal bearing couple is having a resurgence in clinical applications seen in total hip and hip resurfacing technologies. The most noteworthy advantage of a metal-on-metal implant is the improved wear characteristics seen in vitro on wear simulators and in vivo with retrieved implants. All bearings have disadvantages, and a metal-on-metal bearing is no exception. Concerns exist regarding the generation of metal ions seen in the blood and urine of patients with metal-on-metal implants. These elevated metal ions have theoretical, although not proven, risks related to carcinogenic and biologic concerns. Additionally, concerns exist regarding hypersensitivity, increased incidence of instability and increased costs. Specific patient selection issues arise with metal-on-metal implants. The current generation of implants has only early and mid-term results available, with no long-term series yet published. Therefore, although a metal-on-metal bearing may be considered a viable alternative to either polyethylene or ceramic implants, outstanding and unresolved issues continue to exist with this bearing, as they do with the alternatives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15577471     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000150309.48474.8b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  26 in total

Review 1.  Hip resurfacing: a technology reborn.

Authors:  Steven Cutts; Paul B Carter
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.401

2.  Perivascular lymphocytic infiltration is not limited to metal-on-metal bearings.

Authors:  Vincent Y Ng; Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Michael D Skeels; Joanne B Adams
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mike S McGrath; David R Marker; Thorsten M Seyler; Slif D Ulrich; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Metallic debris from metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty regulates periprosthetic tissues.

Authors:  Christoph H Lohmann; Gurpal Singh; Hans-Georg Willert; Gottfried H Buchhorn
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-11-18

Review 5.  Chronic inflammation in biomaterial-induced periprosthetic osteolysis: NF-κB as a therapeutic target.

Authors:  Tzu-hua Lin; Yasunobu Tamaki; Jukka Pajarinen; Heather A Waters; Deanna K Woo; Zhenyu Yao; Stuart B Goodman
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 8.947

6.  2008 John Charnley award: metal ion levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized trial.

Authors:  C Anderson Engh; Steven J MacDonald; Supatra Sritulanondha; Abigail Thompson; Douglas Naudie; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Adverse Reactions to Metal on Metal Are Not Exclusive to Large Heads in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Joanne B Adams; Keri L Satterwhite
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Whole-mount specimens in the analysis of en bloc samples obtained from revisions of resurfacing hip implants. A report of 4 early failures.

Authors:  Ioannis Stogiannidis; Timo Puolakka; Jorma Pajamäki; Teemu Moilanen; Yrjö T Konttinen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An Evidence-Based Analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2006-02-01

10.  Delayed sciatic nerve palsy following resurfacing hip arthroplasty caused by metal debris.

Authors:  Babar Kayani; Jeeshan Rahman; Sammy A Hanna; Stephen R Cannon; William J Aston; Jonathan Miles
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2012-11-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.