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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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