Literature DB >> 30794222

Revisions of Modular Metal-on-metal THA Have a High Risk of Early Complications.

Jason M Jennings1, Samuel White, J Ryan Martin, Charlie C Yang, Todd M Miner, Douglas A Dennis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The risk of early complications is high after monoblock acetabular metal-on-metal (MoM) THA revisions. However, there is a paucity of evidence regarding clinical complications after isolated head-liner exchange of modular MoM THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to describe the frequency of early complications after an isolated head-liner exchange revision of modular MoM THA; and (2) to determine whether patients who experienced complications or dislocation after head-liner exchanges had higher serum chromium (Cr) or cobalt (Co) ion levels than those who did not.
METHODS: A review of our institution's total joint registry retrospectively identified 53 patients who underwent 54 liner exchange revisions of a modular acetabular MoM THA. The study period was from April 2008 to April 2016 at a single tertiary care center. During this period, isolated head-liner exchanges (rather than more extensive revisions) were performed in patients if they did not have evidence of loosening of the acetabular or femoral components. Reasons for revision surgery included pain, mechanical symptoms, radiographic evidence of osteolysis, elevated serum metal ions, and MRI abnormalities with 40 of the 54 hips having pain or mechanical symptoms and 38 of 54 hips having multiple reasons for revision before surgery. Patients were excluded if they did not meet the minimum postrevision followup or had the modular liner exchange secondary to infection. All revisions were from a single manufacturer with one head-liner exchange of a MoM THA from another manufacturer excluded during the study period. The mean time from index MoM THA to modular exchange was 96 (SD ± 36) months. Because the focus of this study was early complications, we had a minimum 90-day followup duration for inclusion. Mean followup after revision was 15 months (SD ± 12); a total of 56% (30 of 54) had followup of at least 12 months' duration. Complications (dislocation, infection) and reoperations were obtained by chart review performed by individuals other than the treating physician(s). Serum metal ion levels were obtained before head-liner exchange. The median serum Cr and Co levels were 6 µg/L (range, 0-76 µg/L) and 12 µg/L (range, 0-163 µg/L), respectively.
RESULTS: Of the 54 revision THAs, 15 (28%) developed complications. Nine (17%) occurred within 90 days of the revision surgery and 11 (20%) resulted in reoperation. The most common complication was dislocation (12 of 54 [22%]) with recurrent dislocation noted in eight of these 12 patients. All patients with recurrent dislocation continued to dislocate and underwent repeat revision. Patients with dislocation had higher median serum Cr and Co ion levels than those without dislocation (Cr: 24 [range, 11-76] versus 4 [range, 0-70], p = 0.001 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10-57]; Co: 41 [range, 6-163] versus 8 [range, 0-133], p = 0.016 [95% CI, 6-141]). Three (6%) of the 54 patients underwent repeat surgery for deep space infection.
CONCLUSIONS: Complications and reoperations are common after modular head-liner exchange in the setting of a failed MoM THA. Our study likely underestimates the frequency of complications and revisions because the followup period in this report was relatively short. Dislocation is the most common complication and elevated serum metal ion levels may be a predictor of dislocation. These findings are concerning and surgeons should be aware of the high complication risk associated with this procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30794222      PMCID: PMC6370086          DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000363

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  23 in total

1.  Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Alister J Hart; Keshthra Satchithananda; Alexander D Liddle; Shiraz A Sabah; Donald McRobbie; Johann Henckel; Justin P Cobb; John A Skinner; Adam W Mitchell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Metal-on-metal vs conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Pramod B Voleti; Keith D Baldwin; Gwo-Chin Lee
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Are metal ion levels a useful trigger for surgical intervention?

Authors:  William L Griffin; Thomas K Fehring; James C Kudrna; Robert H Schmidt; Michael J Christie; Susan M Odum; Anne C Dennos
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Colin T Penrose; Thorsten M Seyler; Samuel S Wellman; Michael P Bolognesi; Paul F Lachiewicz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Comparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.

Authors:  Ingrid Milošev; Simon Kovač; Rihard Trebše; Vesna Levašič; Venčeslav Pišot
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Radiographically undetectable periprosthetic osteolysis with ASR implants: the implication of blood metal ions.

Authors:  Filippo Randelli; Lorenzo Banci; Sara Favilla; Daniela Maglione; Alberto Aliprandi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Corrosion at the head-neck taper as a cause for adverse local tissue reactions after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  H John Cooper; Craig J Della Valle; Richard A Berger; Matthew Tetreault; Wayne G Paprosky; Scott M Sporer; Joshua J Jacobs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  What are the predictors and prevalence of pseudotumor and elevated metal ions after large-diameter metal-on-metal THA?

Authors:  Nick Bayley; Habeeb Khan; Paul Grosso; Thomas Hupel; David Stevens; Matthew Snider; Emil Schemitsch; Paul Kuzyk
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Corrosion of the Head-neck Junction After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jason M Jennings; Douglas A Dennis; Charlie C Yang
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.020

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
  5 in total

Review 1.  Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure.

Authors:  Justin S Chang; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-10-04

Review 2.  [Postoperative outcomes and survival rates after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty : What can patients expect from revision surgery?]

Authors:  Manuela Hoffmann; Johannes C Reichert; Anastasia Rakow; Janosch Schoon; Georgi I Wassilew
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-23

3.  Favourable clinical outcomes following cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 10 years.

Authors:  Weiguang Yu; Meiji Chen; Xianshang Zeng; Mingdong Zhao; Xinchao Zhang; Junxing Ye; Jintao Zhuang; Guowei Han
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-21       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty using cemented arthroplasty: a mean 10-year follow-up of 157 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Jinluan Lin; Chunlong Huang; Weiguang Yu; Guowei Han; Xiangzhen Liu; Xianshang Zeng
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 1.671

5.  Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.

Authors:  Olli Lainiala; Aleksi Reito; Jyrki Nieminen; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.717

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.