Literature DB >> 27387480

Preoperative Risk Factors Associated With Poor Outcomes of Revision Surgery for "Pseudotumors" in Patients With Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty.

Ming Han Lincoln Liow1, Dimitris Dimitriou1, Tsung-Yuan Tsai1, Young-Min Kwon1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Revision surgery of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) for adverse tissue reaction (pseudotumor) can be challenging as a consequence of soft tissue and muscle necrosis. The aims of this study were to (1) report the revision outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for failed MoM hip arthroplasty due to symptomatic pseudotumor and (2) identify preoperative risk factors associated with revision outcomes.
METHODS: Between January 2011 and January 2013, a total of 102 consecutive large head MoM hip arthroplasties in 97 patients (male: 62, female: 35), who underwent revision surgery were identified from the database of a multidisciplinary referral center.
RESULTS: At minimum follow-up of 2 years (range: 26-52 months), at least one complication had occurred in 14 of 102 revisions (14%). Prerevision radiographic loosening (P = .01), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of solid lesions with abductor deficiency on MRI (P < .001), and intraoperative grading of adverse tissue reactions (P = .05) were correlated with post-revision complications. The reoperation rate of revised MoM THA was 7% (7 of 102 hips). Implant survivorship was 88% at 3 years. Metal ion levels declined in most patients after removal of MoM articulation.
CONCLUSION: Revision outcomes of revision surgery for failed MoM THA due to symptomatic pseudotumor demonstrated 14% complication rate and 7% re-revision rate at 30-month follow-up. Our study identified prerevision radiographic loosening, solid lesions/abductor deficiency on MRI, and high grade intraoperative tissue damage as risk factors associated with poorer revision outcomes. This provides clinically useful information for preoperative planning and perioperative counseling of MoM THA patients undergoing revision surgery.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical outcomes; metal ion levels; metal-on-metal; pseudotumors; revision hip arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27387480     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.034

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


  11 in total

1.  Perioperative factors associated with increased length of stay after revision of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan H Garfinkel; Brian P Gladnick; Cole S Pachter; Niall H Cochrane; David W Romness
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-01-17

2.  Outcome of revision surgery for adverse local tissue reactions in patients with recalled total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Klemt; Sakkadech Limmahakhun; Georges Bounajem; Christopher M Melnic; Michael J Harvey; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Lessons learnt from early failure of a patient trial with a polymer-on-polymer resurfacing hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Job L C Van Susante; Nico Verdonschot; L Paul A Bom; Pawel Tomaszewski; Pat Campbell; Edward Ebramzadeh; B Wim Schreurs
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.717

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.  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

6.  Favourable clinical outcomes following cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 10 years.

Authors:  Weiguang Yu; Meiji Chen; Xianshang Zeng; Mingdong Zhao; Xinchao Zhang; Junxing Ye; Jintao Zhuang; Guowei Han
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty using cemented arthroplasty: a mean 10-year follow-up of 157 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Jinluan Lin; Chunlong Huang; Weiguang Yu; Guowei Han; Xiangzhen Liu; Xianshang Zeng
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.671

8.  A new strategy to reconstruct type III acetabular bone defect associated with inflammatory pseudotumor: combined medial and lateral acetabular bone grafting: A case report.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Dejiu Wang; Jiang Du; Zhen Lin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Pseudotumor in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a comparison study of three grading systems with MRI.

Authors:  C Smeekes; B J M Schouten; M Nix; B F Ongkiehong; R Wolterbeek; B C H van der Wal; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Jyrki Nieminen; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.