Literature DB >> 27605688

Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Hip Resurfacing Revision: A Cohort Study Into the Second Decade After the Operation.

Gulraj S Matharu1, Andrew Judge2, David W Murray3, Hemant G Pandit4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs have experienced high short-term failure rates because of pseudotumors. The impact of this complication into the second decade after the procedure is unknown. We investigated (1) the prevalence of, and risk factors for, all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision at up to 15 years following MoMHR and (2) whether risk factors were sex-specific.
METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study included 1,429 MoMHRs (1216 patients; 40% female) implanted between 1999 and 2009. Patients were contacted in 2010 and 2012 as per national recommendations. Patients with symptoms related to the hip and/or suboptimal Oxford Hip Scores (≤41 of 48 points) underwent cross-sectional imaging and blood metal-ion sampling. Revision diagnoses were established using operative and histopathological findings. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of predictor variables with the time to all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty MoMHRs (12.6%) were revised for all causes, and 111 (7.8% of the series and 61.7 % of all revisions) were revised because of pseudotumor. Survival analysis showed the 15-year cumulative revision rate for all causes to be 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.2% to 23.2%) and the 15-year rate of revision due to pseudotumor to be 14.0% (95% CI = 11.0% to 17.7%). Small femoral head size (hazard ratio [HR] per 2 mm = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and certain implant designs (HR = 1.55 to 3.01; p ≤ 0.029) significantly increased the all-cause revision risk. Female sex (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.44; p = 0.009) and young age (HR per year = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.00; p = 0.020) significantly increased the pseudotumor-related revision risk but not the all-cause revision risk. Risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision were sex-specific. In females, small femoral head size (p = 0.014) increased the all-cause revision risk, and young age was the only predictor of pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.019). In males, implant design was the only predictor of all-cause revision (p ≤ 0.015) and pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and rates of revision for all causes and pseudotumor were high at up to 15 years following MoMHR. Predictors of revision differed between all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions and were sex-specific. These factors must be appropriately weighted when risk-stratifying patients with MoMHRs for surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27605688     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.15.01234

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


  17 in total

1.  Letter to the Editor: Is There a Cardiotoxicity Associated With Metallic Head Hip Prostheses? A Cohort Study in the French National Health Insurance Databases.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Michael R Whitehouse
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Outcomes after revision of metal on metal hip resurfacing to total arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach.

Authors:  Victoire Bouveau; Thomas-Xavier Haen; Joel Poupon; Christophe Nich
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Implant failure in bilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties: a clinical and pathological study.

Authors:  Yoshinubo Uchihara; George Grammatopoulos; Mitsuru Munemoto; Gulraj Matharu; Yusuke Inagaki; Hemant Pandit; Yasuhito Tanaka; Nick A Athanasou
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.896

8.  Blood Metal Ion Thresholds to Identify Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: An External Multicenter Validation Study of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Implants.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Fiona Berryman; Andrew Judge; Aleksi Reito; Jamie McConnell; Olli Lainiala; Stephen Young; Antti Eskelinen; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.