Literature DB >> 27992643

Recall of the ASR XL Head and Hip Resurfacing Systems.

Werner Maurer-Ertl, Joerg Friesenbichler, Lukas A Holzer, Lukas Leitner, Kathrin Ogris, Michael Maier, Andreas Leithner.   

Abstract

At the beginning of the 21st century, use of large-diameter, metal-on-metal devices was a popular procedure for hip replacement in young and physically active patients; however, within a few years, the number of revisions increased, resulting in a worldwide recall for the articular surface replacement (ASR) system. Complication rates for the ASR devices implanted at the authors' department are reported, with revision rates of 32% and 30% in the ASR XL Head and ASR Resurfacing groups, respectively. Reasons for revision surgery were serum metal ion elevation, luxation or subluxation, aseptic loosening, soft tissue compromise (adverse reactions to metal debris [ARMD]), and infection. The calculated implant survival for the ASR XL Head system and the ASR Resurfacing device (DePuy Orthopaedics Inc, Warsaw, Indiana) in the current series was 79% and 90%, respectively, at 60 months. Symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal devices, with or without elevated metal ion concentrations, should undergo cross sectional imaging to exclude ARMD. In cases of increased metal ion concentrations, local pain, or ARMD, revision surgery has to be evaluated. In the future, closer monitoring of new implants is needed to prevent high failure rates, as seen with the ASR design. Furthermore, the withdrawal of the device highlights the importance of national implant registries. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e340-e347.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27992643     DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20161213-04

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopedics        ISSN: 0147-7447            Impact factor:   1.390


  6 in total

1.  Mapping the Diffusion of Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Understanding the Spread of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel C Austin; Michael T Torchia; Jonathan D Lurie; David S Jevsevar; John-Erik Bell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Potential presence of metals in patients treated with metal-metal coupling prostheses for hip arthroplasty at 7 and 10 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Giuseppe Sessa; Gianluca Testa; Salvatore Gioitta Iachino; Luciano Costarella; Calogero Puma Pagliarello; Margherita Ferrante; Alfina Grasso; Vito Pavone
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2018-01-22

3.  Clinical Results and Serum Metal Ion Concentrations following Ceramic-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty at a Mean Follow-Up of 60 Months.

Authors:  W Maurer-Ertl; D Pranckh-Matzke; J Friesenbichler; G Bratschitsch; L A Holzer; M Maier; A Leithner
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Blood Management in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Metal-on-Metal Devices: The Efficiency of an Intraoperative Cell Salvage System.

Authors:  Werner Maurer-Ertl; Andreas Fellner; Patrick Reinbacher; Michael Maier; Andreas Leithner; Joerg Friesenbichler
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 1.251

5.  Investigation and analysis of four countries' recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from 2011 to 2021.

Authors:  Yang Wang; Kai Xu; Yuchen Wang; Weijie Ye; Xinyi Hao; Shouli Wang; Kun Li; Jun Du
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 2.677

6.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty provides excellent long-term survivorship and function in patients with a good-sized femoral head : results of a single, non-designer surgeon's cohort.

Authors:  M Haseeb Gani; Ubaid Zahoor; Sammy A Hanna; Gareth Scott
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.