Literature DB >> 25695991

A new approach to managing patients with problematic metal hip implants: the use of an Internet-enhanced multidisciplinary team meeting: AAOS exhibit selection.

Reshid Berber1, Yannis Pappas2, Michael Khoo1, Jonathan Miles1, Richard Carrington1, John Skinner1, Alister Hart1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over one million patients worldwide are estimated to have a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. To improve the management of these patients and reduce surgeon uncertainty regarding decision-making, we designed an Internet-enhanced multidisciplinary team (iMDT) working approach.
METHODS: From August 2012 to April 2014, the iMDT discussed 215 patients with 266 metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Of these, 236 primary arthroplasties (132 hip resurfacing and 104 total hip) were analyzed. The remaining thirty cases involved problematic revised hips and were therefore excluded. The possible recommendations of the iMDT were monitoring, further investigation, or surgery. The concordance between the recommendation and the actual management was used to assess the usefulness of this approach in reducing uncertainty in surgeon-level decision-making.
RESULTS: The median Oxford Hip Score was 35 (range, 4 to 48), and median cobalt and chromium levels in whole blood were 3.54 ppb (range, 0.18 to 161.46 ppb) and 3.17 ppb (range, 0.20 to 100.67 ppb), respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed abductor muscle atrophy in ninety-two (39%) of the hips and a pseudotumor in eighty (34%). The iMDT recommended monitoring of 146 (61.9%) of the hips, further investigation of thirty (12.7%), and surgery in sixty (25.4%). The actual outcome was concordant with the recommendation in 211 (91.7%) of the hips.
CONCLUSIONS: Our iMDT approach to the metal-on-metal hip burden combines the tacit knowledge of an expert panel, regulatory guidance, and up-to-date evidence to improve decision-making among surgeons. The high level of concordance between the recommendation and the actual outcome, combined with the feasibility of the methods used, suggest that this method effectively reduces uncertainty among surgeons and may lead to improved patient outcomes.
Copyright © 2015 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25695991     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Five Hundred Fifty-five Retrieved Metal-on-metal Hip Replacements of a Single Design Show a Wide Range of Wear, Surface Features, and Histopathologic Reactions.

Authors:  Sang-Hyun Park; Zhen Lu; Robert S Hastings; Patricia A Campbell; Edward Ebramzadeh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Management of metal-on-metal hip implant patients: Who, when and how to revise?

Authors:  Reshid Berber; John A Skinner; Alister J Hart
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-05-18

4.  Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Antti Eskelinen; Andrew Judge; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Surgical Treatment of Intrapelvic Pseudotumour after Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Case Report and Literature Review.

Authors:  Cristian Barrientos; Julian Brañes; José-Luis Llanos; Alvaro Martinez; Maximiliano Barahona
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2018-10-25

6.  No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Fiona Berryman; David J Dunlop; Matthew P Revell; Andrew Judge; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  A multidisciplinary neuro-oncological triage panel reduces the time to referral and treatment for patients with a brain tumor.

Authors:  Merijn E de Swart; Mathilde C M Kouwenhoven; Tessa Hellingman; Babette I Kuiper; Cathelijne Gorter de Vries; Machteld Leembruggen-Vellinga; Niels K Maliepaard; Ernest J Wouda; Bastiaan Moraal; David P Noske; Tjeerd J Postma; Esther Sanchez Aliaga; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; William P Vandertop; Barbara M Zonderhuis; Geert Kazemier; Philip C de Witt Hamer; Maaike Schuur
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2021-07-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.