Literature DB >> 22930211

The 2012 Otto Aufranc Award: The interpretation of metal ion levels in unilateral and bilateral hip resurfacing.

Catherine Van Der Straeten1, George Grammatopoulos, Harinderjit S Gill, Alessandro Calistri, Patricia Campbell, Koen A De Smet.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The interpretation of metal ion concentrations and their role in clinical management of patients with metal-on-metal implants is still controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We questioned whether patients undergoing hip resurfacing with no clinical problems could be differentiated from those with clinical (pain, loss of function) and/or radiographic (component malpositioning, migration, bone loss), problems based on metal ion levels, and if there was a threshold metal level that predicted the need for clinical intervention. Furthermore, we asked if patient and implant factors differed between these functional groups.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 453 unilateral and 139 bilateral patients with ion measurements at minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 4.3 years; range, 1-12.9 years). Patients were designated as well functioning or poorly functioning based on strict criteria. The acceptable upper levels within the well-functioning group were determined from the 75th percentile plus 1.5× interquartile range. The sensitivity and specificity of these levels to predict clinical problems were calculated.
RESULTS: Well-functioning group ions were lower than the poorly functioning group ion levels. The acceptable upper levels were: chromium (Cr) 4.6 μg/L, cobalt (Co) 4.0 μg/L unilateral and Cr 7.4 μg/L, Co 5.0 μg/L bilateral. The specificity of these levels in predicting poor function was high (95%) and sensitivity was low (25%). There were more males in the well-functioning group and more females and smaller femoral components in the poorly functioning group.
CONCLUSIONS: Metal levels higher than these proposed safe upper limits can predict problems with metal-on-metal resurfacings and are important parameters in the management of at-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 22930211      PMCID: PMC3549185          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2526-x

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


  21 in total

1.  A consensus paper on metal ions in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.

Authors:  Steven J MacDonald; Wolfram Brodner; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome.

Authors:  G Grammatopoulos; G Grammatopolous; H Pandit; Y-M Kwon; R Gundle; P McLardy-Smith; D J Beard; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-08

3.  Metal ion interpretation in resurfacing versus conventional hip arthroplasty and in whole blood versus serum. How should we interpret metal ion data.

Authors:  José M H Smolders; Pepijn Bisseling; Annemiek Hol; Catherine Van Der Straeten; B Willem Schreurs; Job L C van Susante
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities.

Authors:  G Bergmann; G Deuretzbacher; M Heller; F Graichen; A Rohlmann; J Strauss; G N Duda
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Metal ion measurement as a diagnostic tool to identify problems with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  K De Smet; R De Haan; A Calistri; P A Campbell; E Ebramzadeh; C Pattyn; H S Gill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement.

Authors:  R De Haan; C Pattyn; H S Gill; D W Murray; P A Campbell; K De Smet
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-10

7.  Characterization of the running-in period in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an in vivo and in vitro metal ion analysis.

Authors:  Christian Heisel; Nikolaus Streich; Michael Krachler; Eike Jakubowitz; J Philippe Kretzer
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophages in vitro.

Authors:  Young-Min Kwon; Zhidao Xia; Sion Glyn-Jones; David Beard; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray
Journal:  Biomed Mater       Date:  2009-04-06       Impact factor: 3.715

Review 9.  Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing?

Authors:  Ryan M Nunley; Craig J Della Valle; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties.

Authors:  D J Langton; A P Sprowson; T J Joyce; M Reed; I Carluke; P Partington; A V F Nargol
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-10
View more
  43 in total

1.  Follow-up guidance for metal-on-metal hip replacement patients should be updated.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Stephen J Mellon; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-01-21       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  High prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris in small-headed ASR™ hips.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Repeated metal ion measurements in patients with high risk metal-on-metal hip replacement.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Teemu Moilanen; Timo Puolakka; Jorma Pajamäki; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  [Complications of metal-on-metal tribological pairing].

Authors:  M Stiehler; F Zobel; F Hannemann; J Schmitt; J Lützner; S Kirschner; K-P Günther; A Hartmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Lumbar total disc replacement: does it still need further follow-up?

Authors:  Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-09

Review 7.  What are the current clinical issues in wear and tribocorrosion?

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  What Is the Clinical Presentation of Adverse Local Tissue Reaction in Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty? An MRI Study.

Authors:  Vincent P Galea; Inari Laaksonen; James W Connelly; Sean J Matuszak; Marc Nortje; Rami Madanat; Orhun Muratoglu; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Metal-on-Metal Hip Joint Prostheses: a Retrospective Case Series Investigating the Association of Systemic Toxicity with Serum Cobalt and Chromium Concentrations.

Authors:  James H Ho; Jerrold B Leikin; Paul I Dargan; John R H Archer; David M Wood; Jeffrey Brent
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2017-09-12

Review 10.  Do retrieval analysis and blood metal measurements contribute to our understanding of adverse local tissue reactions?

Authors:  Patricia A Campbell; Michael S Kung; Andrew R Hsu; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.