Literature DB >> 26439179

How Should We Follow-Up Asymptomatic Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Patients? A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Adrian K Low1, Gulraj S Matharu1, Simon J Ostlere1, David W Murray1, Hemant G Pandit1.   

Abstract

Current surveillance for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients is not evidence based. This study established changes that occurred in 152 asymptomatic MoMHRs using repeat ultrasound and patient-reported outcomes. Factors associated with (1) ultrasound progression and (2) developing new pseudotumors were analyzed. Patients underwent repeat assessments 4.3 years later. Ultrasound progression was observed in 19% (n = 29), with 10% (n = 15) developing new pseudotumors. Key predictors of ultrasound progression included high blood cobalt (P = .00013) and chromium (P = .00065), and high initial ultrasound grade (P = .003) and volume (P = .036). No asymptomatic MoMHRs with initially normal metal ions (<2 μg/L) and normal ultrasounds (33% of cohort) developed new pseudotumors. This patient subgroup does not require repeat follow-up within 5 years.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  asymptomatic; blood metal ions; follow-up; hip resurfacing; metal-on-metal; ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26439179     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.08.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  11 in total

1.  Metal-on-metal hip replacements: implications for general practice.

Authors:  Victoria K Matharu; Gulraj S Matharu
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Ultrasound-based decision making following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Remo Goderecci; Andrea Fidanza; Stefano Necozione; Vincenzo Francione; Pier Francesco Indelli; Vittorio Calvisi
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-04-16

3.  Long-term results of metal on metal total hip arthroplasty in younger patients (<55yrs).

Authors:  Muhammad Umar; Noman Jahangir; Qasim Malik; Steven Kershaw; Keith Barnes; Syam Morapudi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-05-07

4.  Activity levels following hip resurfacing arthroplasty: A tool to help manage patient expectations.

Authors:  Jack W Martin; Mark A Williams; Karen L Barker
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-05-07

5.  How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

Authors:  Rajpal S Nandra; Usman Ahmed; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; David J Dunlop; Gulraj S Matharu
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 1.756

6.  Risk factors for failure of the 36 mm metal-on-metal Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty system: a retrospective single-centre cohort study.

Authors:  G S Matharu; R S Nandra; F Berryman; A Judge; P B Pynsent; D J Dunlop
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 7.  Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: Current status and future prospects.

Authors:  Christiaan P van Lingen; Luigi M Zagra; Harmen B Ettema; Cees C Verheyen
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13

8.  Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  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

10.  Ten-year results of a prospective cohort of large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty : a concise follow-up of a previous report.

Authors:  Christiaan P van Lingen; Harmen B Ettema; Bart H Bosker; Cees C P M Verheyen
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.