Literature DB >> 23572349

High complication rate after revision of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Jacob T Munro1, Bassam A Masri, Clive P Duncan, Donald S Garbuz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated poor outcomes in patients having revision of hip resurfacing resulting from adverse local tissue reaction and pseudotumor. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed all patients at our institution who had revision of failed large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty to determine (1) complications including reoperations; (2) radiologic outcomes; and (3) changes in serum ions after removal of the metal bearing.
METHODS: From our research database, we identified 32 hips in 30 patients. Revisions were performed through a posterior approach; 17 were performed with a titanium fiber-metal shell and 15 with a porous tantalum shell, and 29 of the 32 revisions were performed with large (36- or 40-mm) femoral heads. Clinical records were reviewed and interviews conducted in the clinic or by telephone. Nineteen hips had a pre- or intraoperative diagnosis of adverse local tissue reaction, three had deep infection, and 10 had loosening of the acetabular component.
RESULTS: Major complications occurred in 12 (38%) of the 32 revisions. Nine of 32 hips (28%) sustained dislocations. Four of 17 fiber-metal acetabular components failed to ingrow; none of the porous tantalum cups failed to ingrow. Seven repeat revisions were performed in six patients: three for acetabular loosening, three for recurrent dislocation, and one for recurrent adverse local tissue reaction. The mean WOMAC pain score was 78 of 100 and the function score was 83 of 100. Metal ion levels decreased after revision in most patients.
CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the high rate of failure of the fiber metal cups, we have elected to use an enhanced fixation surface with a high-porosity cup for revision of these cases. We observed a high rate of dislocation despite the use of 36-mm and 40-mm heads.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23572349      PMCID: PMC3890190          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2979-6

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


  28 in total

1.  Serum cobalt levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Wolfram Brodner; Peter Bitzan; Vanee Meisinger; Alexandra Kaider; Florian Gottsauner-Wolf; Rainer Kotz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Constrained cups appear incapable of meeting the demands of revision THA.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Salim K Durrani; Molly M Usrey; Kenneth B Mathis; Nikolaos V Bardakos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up.

Authors:  P Korovessis; G Petsinis; M Repanti; T Repantis
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  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

5.  Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement.

Authors:  B Zicat; C A Engh; E Gokcen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity.

Authors:  Scott M Sporer; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements.

Authors:  A P Davies; H G Willert; P A Campbell; I D Learmonth; C P Case
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.284

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.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.

Authors:  H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-07

10.  Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: does early clinical outcome justify the chance of an adverse local tissue reaction?

Authors:  Charles A Engh; Henry Ho; Charles A Engh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  56 in total

1.  Revision for taper corrosion at the neck-body junction following total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Mitchell C Weiser; Darwin D Chen
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

2.  Early Lessons From a Worldwide, Multicenter, Followup Study of the Recalled Articular Surface Replacement Hip System.

Authors:  Rami Madanat; Daniel K Hussey; Gabrielle S Donahue; Hollis G Potter; Robert Wallace; Charles Bragdon; Orhun Muratoglu; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  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

4.  Revisions of monoblock metal-on-metal THAs have high early complication rates.

Authors:  Louis S Stryker; Susan M Odum; Thomas K Fehring; Bryan D Springer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  CORR Insights®: Revisions of Modular Metal-on-metal THA Have a High Risk of Early Complications.

Authors:  Peter F Sharkey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Arthroscopy as a diagnostic tool for painful trunnion corrosion after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael R Whitehouse; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure.

Authors:  Justin S Chang; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-10-04

Review 8.  Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Bryan D Haughom; Brandon J Erickson; Michael D Hellman; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  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

10.  Do patients with a failed metal-on-metal hip implant with a pseudotumor present differences in their peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations?

Authors:  Isabelle Catelas; Eric A Lehoux; Ian Hurda; Stephen J Baskey; Luca Gala; Ryan Foster; Paul R Kim; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.