David Sands1, Emil H Schemitsch2. 1. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 2. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current role of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings in hip arthroplasty remains controversial. The low wear offered by MoM bearings compared to metal-on-polyethylene and the possibility of a lower risk of dislocation with larger head sizes, encouraged a trend towards the re-introduction of the MoM bearing couple. However, recent evidence has shown that not all designs of the MoM bearing have been successful. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the use of MoM bearings and address the following issues: (1) the reintroduction of metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty, (2) the failure of metal-on-metal bearings in stemmed total hip arthroplasty, (3) the role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in modern orthopaedics and (4) metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A literature search strategy was conducted using various search terms in MEDLINE and Embase. The highest quality articles that met the inclusion criteria and best answered the topics of focus of this review were selected. Key search terms included 'metal-on-metal', 'total hip arthroplasty' and 'hip resurfacing'. RESULTS: The initial search retrieved 1240 articles. Twenty-two articles were selected and used in the review. CONCLUSION: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is still a suitable treatment option in specific patient populations with the appropriate implant design and surgical skill, while stemmed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty should be avoided in all patient populations. Continued follow-up of patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is critical in order to further understand the long-term outcomes of these patients and why certain complications tend to occur with this procedure.
BACKGROUND: The current role of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings in hip arthroplasty remains controversial. The low wear offered by MoM bearings compared to metal-on-polyethylene and the possibility of a lower risk of dislocation with larger head sizes, encouraged a trend towards the re-introduction of the MoM bearing couple. However, recent evidence has shown that not all designs of the MoM bearing have been successful. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the use of MoM bearings and address the following issues: (1) the reintroduction of metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty, (2) the failure of metal-on-metal bearings in stemmed total hip arthroplasty, (3) the role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in modern orthopaedics and (4) metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A literature search strategy was conducted using various search terms in MEDLINE and Embase. The highest quality articles that met the inclusion criteria and best answered the topics of focus of this review were selected. Key search terms included 'metal-on-metal', 'total hip arthroplasty' and 'hip resurfacing'. RESULTS: The initial search retrieved 1240 articles. Twenty-two articles were selected and used in the review. CONCLUSION:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is still a suitable treatment option in specific patient populations with the appropriate implant design and surgical skill, while stemmed metal-on-metaltotal hip arthroplasty should be avoided in all patient populations. Continued follow-up of patients undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is critical in order to further understand the long-term outcomes of these patients and why certain complications tend to occur with this procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
hip resurfacing; metal-on-metal; pseudotumor; total-hip arthroplasty
Authors: F S Haddad; R R Thakrar; A J Hart; J A Skinner; A V F Nargol; J F Nolan; H S Gill; D W Murray; A W Blom; C P Case Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2011-05
Authors: Young-Min Kwon; Simon J Ostlere; Peter McLardy-Smith; Nicholas A Athanasou; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Martin Lavigne; Etienne L Belzile; Alain Roy; François Morin; Traian Amzica; Pascal-André Vendittoli Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Mitchell Bernstein; Nicholas M Desy; Alain Petit; David J Zukor; Olga L Huk; John Antoniou Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Karen Pykerman; Jason Werle; Diane Lorenzetti; Tracy Wasylak; Tom Noseworthy; Donald A Dick; Greg O'Connor; Aish Sundaram; Sanne Heintzbergen; Cy Frank Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-04-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kilian Elia Stockhausen; Christoph Riedel; Alex Victoria Belinski; Dorothea Rothe; Thorsten Gehrke; Felix Klebig; Matthias Gebauer; Michael Amling; Mustafa Citak; Björn Busse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 4.379