Literature DB >> 27791239

What is the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients?

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs), and factors associated with future revision.
METHODS: In 2007-2008, we identified 25 MoMHRs (21 patients; mean age 59.9 years; 76% female) with asymptomatic pseudotumours. All patients underwent identical initial assessment (ultrasound, blood metal ions, radiographs, Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) and were considered asymptomatic because they denied experiencing hip symptoms, were satisfied with their MoMHR surgery, and had good or excellent OHSs (≥34). In 2012-2013, repeat assessments were performed in all non-revised patients.
RESULTS: Revision for pseudotumour was performed/recommended in 15 MoMHRs (60%) at a mean 2.7 years (range 0.4-6.4 years) from initial assessment, with 14 developing symptoms before revision. Non-revised MoMHRs (n = 10) underwent repeat ultrasound at a mean 5.1 years (range 4.0-6.5 years) later, with no changes in pseudotumour volume (p = 0.956) or OHS (p = 0.065) between assessments. High blood cobalt (p = 0.0048) and chromium (p = 0.0162), large pseudotumours (p = 0.0458), low OHS (p = 0.0183), and bilateral MoMHRs (p = 0.049) predicted future revision. Patients with blood metal ions above established unilateral/bilateral thresholds and/or initial pseudotumours >30 cm3 had an 86.7% sensitivity, 70.0% specificity, 81.2% positive predictive value, and 77.8% negative predictive value for future revision.
CONCLUSIONS: MoMHR patients with initially asymptomatic pseudotumours often become symptomatic and require revision. Patients with high blood metal ions and/or pseudotumours >30 cm3 should remain under annual surveillance or be considered for revision (especially in patients also having lower initial OHSs, bilateral MoMHRs, and/or those becoming symptomatic). Less regular surveillance of patients outside these parameters appears acceptable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27791239     DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hip Int        ISSN: 1120-7000            Impact factor:   2.135


  5 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Haemorrhagic Pseudotumour Following Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement.

Authors:  Joshua L Filer; James Berstock; Ynyr Hughes-Roberts; Julian Foote; Harvey Sandhu
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-06-09

4.  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

5.  Follow-up of Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements at a Large District Hospital and the Implementation of Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Guidelines: A Review of 297 Patients.

Authors:  Luke Hughes; Kathryn Chamberlain; Heather Robinson; Andrew Sloan; Qaisar Choudry
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2019-11-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.