Sofie-Amalie L Ras Sørensen1, Henrik L Jørgensen2, Sune L Sporing1, Jes B Lauritzen1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen - Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen - Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare revision rates of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRS) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the primary causes for revisions. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for potentially relevant articles addressing MoMTHA and MoMHRS, a total of 51 articles were included. RESULTS: The review includes a total number of 5,399 MoMHRS and 3,244 THA prosthesis and the reasons for prosthesis failure were divided into 7 categories and the main causes discussed. The overall MoMTHA revision rate was 4.7% after 6.9 years. MoMHRS revision rate was 5.9% after 5.7 years. The odds ratio was 1.25 (1.03:1.53) 95% CI (p = 0.03) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).The studies of hip prostheses were separated into 2 categories of short- and long-term (more or less than 5 years). Short-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 4.5% after 4.8 years, and for MoMHRS 4.0% after 4.2 years. The odds ratio was 1.09 (0.82:1.43) 95% CI (0 = 0.56) (MoMTHA vs. MoMHRS). Long-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 5.2% after 7.7 years and 8.2% after 7.6 years for MoMHRS. The odds ratio was 1.58 (1.53:1.96) 95% CI (p = 0.0001) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).Revision causes were divided into 7 main categories. The most common cause for revision for both MoMTHA and MoMHRS was loosening 47.6% vs. 37.7%, fracture (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 19.62%), metal reactions (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 26.92%) infection (MoMTHA 12.08%; MoMHRS 6.54%), instability (MoMTHA 9.13%; MoMHRS 2.69%), manufacturer defect 6.73% for MoMTHA and nonreported for MoMHRS, and miscellaneous (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 6.54%) was stated. INTERPRETATION: The comparison of MoMHRS and MoMTHA revision rates showed no difference in the short term, however in the longer term, the revision rate of MoMHRS was significantly higher than for MoMTHA. The linear increase in revision rate of MoMHRS may indicate a progression in failure.
PURPOSE: To compare revision rates of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRS) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the primary causes for revisions. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for potentially relevant articles addressing MoMTHA and MoMHRS, a total of 51 articles were included. RESULTS: The review includes a total number of 5,399 MoMHRS and 3,244 THA prosthesis and the reasons for prosthesis failure were divided into 7 categories and the main causes discussed. The overall MoMTHA revision rate was 4.7% after 6.9 years. MoMHRS revision rate was 5.9% after 5.7 years. The odds ratio was 1.25 (1.03:1.53) 95% CI (p = 0.03) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).The studies of hip prostheses were separated into 2 categories of short- and long-term (more or less than 5 years). Short-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 4.5% after 4.8 years, and for MoMHRS 4.0% after 4.2 years. The odds ratio was 1.09 (0.82:1.43) 95% CI (0 = 0.56) (MoMTHA vs. MoMHRS). Long-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 5.2% after 7.7 years and 8.2% after 7.6 years for MoMHRS. The odds ratio was 1.58 (1.53:1.96) 95% CI (p = 0.0001) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).Revision causes were divided into 7 main categories. The most common cause for revision for both MoMTHA and MoMHRS was loosening 47.6% vs. 37.7%, fracture (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 19.62%), metal reactions (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 26.92%) infection (MoMTHA 12.08%; MoMHRS 6.54%), instability (MoMTHA 9.13%; MoMHRS 2.69%), manufacturer defect 6.73% for MoMTHA and nonreported for MoMHRS, and miscellaneous (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 6.54%) was stated. INTERPRETATION: The comparison of MoMHRS and MoMTHA revision rates showed no difference in the short term, however in the longer term, the revision rate of MoMHRS was significantly higher than for MoMTHA. The linear increase in revision rate of MoMHRS may indicate a progression in failure.
Authors: Carl Fisher; James Harty; Albert Yee; Celina L Li; Katarzyna Komolibus; Konstantin Grygoryev; Huihui Lu; Ray Burke; Brian C Wilson; Stefan Andersson-Engels Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 3.758