| Literature DB >> 23363428 |
Francesca Salamanna1, Milena Fini, Annapaola Parrilli, Matteo Cadossi, Nicolò Nicoli Aldini, Gianluca Giavaresi, Deianira Luciani, Sandro Giannini.
Abstract
<span class="abstract_title">BACKGROUND: <span class="Chemical">Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HR) has been gaining popularity especially for young and active patients. Although different series report good mid-term results, the long-term outcome and failure mechanisms are still concerning. In this consecutive revision case series, 9 retrieved specimens of a failed Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) were divided according to the time to fracture: 3 specimens failed at less than 6 months (Group 1), 3 failed between 6 months and 3 years (Group 2) and 3 failed later than 3 years (Group 3). The objective of the study was to examine by a specific quantitative histomorphometry and microtomography (micro-CT) method the characteristics of bone quality and its microarchitecture in retrieved metal-on-metal HR.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23363428 PMCID: PMC3570284 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-47
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Summary of the cases: patients gender and age (at the time of the primary operation) implant sizes, operation site, time to revision (F: female; M: male)
| 3 weeks | 70/M | 46- mm head −52-mm cup | Present | 54° | 7° | Left | |
| 2 month | 60/F | 46-mm head, 52-mm cup | Present | 52° | 0° | Right | |
| 5 month | 50/F | 44- mm head −50-mm cup | Present | 47° | 6° | Right | |
| 14 month | 69/F | 42- mm head −52-mm cup | Absent | 45° | 0° | Right | |
| 36 month | 47/F | 46- mm head −52-mm cup | Absent | 46° | 0° | Right | |
| 36 month | 44/F | 42--mm head-48-mm cup | Absent | 67° | 1° | Right | |
| 4 years | 53/M | 50- mm head −56-mm cup | Absent | 52° | 3° | Left | |
| 7 years | 50/F | 42- mm head −48-mm cup | Absent | 60° | 4° | Left | |
| 8 years | 51/F | 46- mm head −52-mm cup | Absent | 54° | 10° | Left |
Figure 1Schematic representation of the methodology for sample analyses. Epson 2480 Scanner, 600dpi of resolution. a) The specimens were embedded in PMMA and cut along the coronal plane, b) sections containing the implants were used for histology and histomorphometric measurement (BIC), c) after the removal of the prosthesis, d) two bone compartments (A and B) were used for μCT, e) thinned and processed for routine histological and histomorphometric analyses.
Figure 2Histology of specimens revised in Group 1 (a, b), Group 2 (c, d) and Group 3 (e, f); sections are representative of bone tissue at increasing distances from the HR dome: within 0.8 cm (top) (a, c, e), from 1.6 to 2.4 cm (b, d, f) (bottom). Toluidine Blue, Acid Fuchsin, Fast Green staining. a) trabecular lamellar bone with evident evenly-spread osteocytes, orientated with the longest axis in the direction of the lamellae contained in the bone lacunae (arrows), resolution 20x; b) necrotic bone tissue, resolution 10x; c) necrotic tissue, resolution 20x; d) necrotic bone tissue infiltrated with aggregates of small dark metal wear-debris particles (metallosis) (arrows), resolution 10x; e) loss of normal trabecular bone microarchitecture, uneven edges due to the resorption of necrotic bone (arrows) resolution 20x; f) metallosis in close association with the necrotic bone trabeculae, resolution 10x.
Figure 3Dot plot of (a) histomorphometric parameters and (b) percentage of empty osteocyte lacunae in the different ROIs (top, central, bottom) for each Group. Mann–Whitney test: (a) Group 3 versus Group 1 (*, p < 0.05); (b) a, Top region versus central and bottom regions (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Dot plot of microtomographic analysis for each Group.
Figure 5Microtomographic sections of HR failure after prostheses removal.a) Group 1 (5 months); b) Group 3 (7 years) showing an important bone rarefaction.
Figure 6Dot plot of microtomographic data split into the different ROIs (top, central, bottom) (a) BV/TV; (b) Tb.Th; (c) Tb.N; (d) Tb.Sp. Mann–Whitney test: - comparison between terms: medium Group 2 and long-term Group 3 groups versus short-term group Group 1 (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.005); -a, Top region versus bottom region (p < 0.005); b, Central region versus top and bottom regions (p < 0.05); c, Top region versus central and bottom regions (p < 0.05); d, Central region versus bottom region (p < 0.05).