Literature DB >> 25655902

Influence of implant design on blood metal ion concentrations in metal-on-metal total hip replacement patients.

Gulraj S Matharu1, Fiona Berryman, Lesley Brash, Paul B Pynsent, Ronan B Treacy, David J Dunlop.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Most factors considered to affect blood metal ions following metal-on-metal hip replacement are based on hip resurfacing patients. The study aims were to determine which factors affect blood metal ion concentrations following metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM THR).
METHODS: All unilateral MoM THR patients at one centre with whole-blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) concentrations measured up to May 2013 were included. Blood sampling was at a mean of 4.5 years (range 1.1-11.8 years) postoperatively.
RESULTS: Of 496 patients (mean age 59.1 years; 52.8% male), blood metal ions >7 μg/l were observed in 9.7% (n = 48). Large femoral head sizes (≥38 mm) had significantly higher (p < 0.0001) blood metal ions than smaller sizes (28/36 mm). Corail-Pinnacle implants produced significantly lower blood metal ions compared to other implant designs (p < 0.01 Co and Cr). Univariate linear regression demonstrated the only significant predictors of both blood Co and Cr concentrations were femoral head size (R(2) = 8.6% Co and R(2) = 3.3% Cr, both p < 0.0001) and implant design (R(2) = 8.8%, p = 0.005 Co and R(2) = 5.1%, p = 0.003 Cr). When the three THR implant design groups (Corail-Pinnacle, Synergy, Other) were analysed separately, femoral head size no longer significantly affected blood metal ions in any of the three implant design groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant design was the most important factor affecting blood metal ion concentrations. We recommend the regularity of follow-up be tailored to survival rates of various MoM THR designs rather than according to femoral head size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25655902     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2644-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  41 in total

1.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

Authors:  D W Murray; R Fitzpatrick; K Rogers; H Pandit; D J Beard; A J Carr; J Dawson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-08

2.  Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear.

Authors:  D J Langton; T J Joyce; S S Jameson; J Lord; M Van Orsouw; J P Holland; A V F Nargol; K A De Smet
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-02

3.  A prospective metal ion study of large-head metal-on-metal bearing: a matched-pair analysis of hip resurfacing versus total hip replacement.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Paul R Kim; Amre Hamdi; Anna Fazekas
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.472

4.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties.

Authors:  G E Lewinnek; J L Lewis; R Tarr; C L Compere; J R Zimmerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1978-03       Impact factor: 5.284

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

Authors:  Catherine Van Der Straeten; George Grammatopoulos; Harinderjit S Gill; Alessandro Calistri; Patricia Campbell; Koen A De Smet
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Relationship of plasma metal ions and clinical and imaging findings in patients with ASR XL metal-on-metal total hip replacements.

Authors:  Eric Y Chang; James L McAnally; James R Van Horne; James G Van Horne; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Christine B Chung
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Comparison of whole-blood metal ion levels in four types of metal-on-metal large-diameter femoral head total hip arthroplasty: the potential influence of the adapter sleeve.

Authors:  Martin Lavigne; Etienne L Belzile; Alain Roy; François Morin; Traian Amzica; Pascal-André Vendittoli
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  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

9.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip arthroplasty: two to five year outcomes in men younger than sixty five years.

Authors:  Leslie A Fink Barnes; Skylar H Johnson; David A Patrick; William Macaulay
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Ashley K Matthies; Johann Henckel; Suzie Cro; Alexander Suarez; Philip C Noble; John Skinner; Alister J Hart
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 3.494

View more
  2 in total

1.  Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up.

Authors:  Md Quamar Azam; Stephen McMahon; Gabrielle Hawdon; Sukesh Rao Sankineani
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Andrew Judge; Antti Eskelinen; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.717

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.