Literature DB >> 19651827

Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome.

G Grammatopoulos1, G Grammatopolous, H Pandit, Y-M Kwon, R Gundle, P McLardy-Smith, D J Beard, D W Murray, H S Gill.   

Abstract

Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and often lead to revision. Our aim was to determine the severity of this complication by assessing the outcome of revision in these circumstances and by comparing this with the outcome of other metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revisions as well as that of matched primary total hip replacements. We identified 53 hips which had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and required revision at a mean of 1.59 years (0.01 to 6.69) after operation. Of these, 16 were revised for pseudotumours, 21 for fracture and 16 for other reasons. These were matched by age, gender and diagnosis with 103 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement with the Exeter implant. At a mean follow-up of three years (0.8 to 7.2) the outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision for pseudotumour was poor with a mean Oxford hip score of 20.9 (sd 9.3) and was significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome for fracture with a mean Oxford hip score of 40.2 (sd 9.2) or that for other causes with a mean Oxford hip score of 37.8 (sd 9.4). The clinical outcome of revision for pseudotumour was also significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome of matched primary total hip replacements. By contrast, the outcome for fracture and other causes was not significantly different from that of matched primary total hip replacements (p = 0.065). After revision for pseudotumour there were three cases of recurrent dislocation, three of palsy of the femoral nerve, one of stenosis of the femoral artery and two of loosening of the component. Five hips required further revision. In three of these there was evidence of recurrent pseudotumour, and one is currently awaiting further revision. The incidence of major complications after revision for pseudotumour (50%) was significantly higher (p = 0.018) than that after revision for other causes (14%). The outcome of revision for pseudotumour is poor and consideration should be given to early revision to limit the extent of the soft-tissue destruction. The outcome of resurfacing revision for other causes is good.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19651827     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B8.22562

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  100 in total

1.  High revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Ronny Pilz; Urs Munzinger; Otmar Hersche; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Reduced articular surface of one-piece cups: a cause of runaway wear and early failure.

Authors:  William L Griffin; Christopher J Nanson; Bryan D Springer; Matthew A Davies; Thomas K Fehring
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Survival of hard-on-hard bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael G Zywiel; Siraj A Sayeed; Aaron J Johnson; Thomas P Schmalzried; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR.

Authors:  James Min-Leong Wong; Yen-Liang Liu; Stephen Graves; Richard de Steiger
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  The surgical options and clinical evidence for treatment of wear or corrosion occurring with THA or TKA.

Authors:  Charles A Engh; Henry Ho; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Management of metal-on-metal hip implant patients: Who, when and how to revise?

Authors:  Reshid Berber; John A Skinner; Alister J Hart
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-05-18

7.  The natural history of inflammatory pseudotumors in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sulaiman A Almousa; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Richard N de Steiger; Lisa N Miller; Gareth H Prosser; Stephen E Graves; David C Davidson; Tyman E Stanford
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision.

Authors:  Gareth H Prosser; Piers J Yates; David J Wood; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; Lisa N Miller
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Catastrophic failure due to aggressive metallosis 4 years after hip resurfacing in a woman in her forties--a case report.

Authors:  Thord von Schewelov; Lennart Sanzén
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.