Main Article Content
hip, prosthesis, metal on metal, ion, clinical scores.
Background and aim of the work: Adverse reaction to metal debris is the major cause of the high revision rates of metal on metal hip implants with femoral head size ≥ 36mm. Health authorities recommend regular surveillance even for asymptomatic individuals. The main investigations used are Co+ and Cr+ serum levels, x-rays and, eventually, ultrasound and MARS-MRI. Clinic is also assessed. The aim of this study is to identify if there is a relation between ion levels and the clinical scores in order to evaluate the outcome and plan the correct management after this type of implant.
Methods: 383 subjects were included and divided in 3 groups (serum ion levels >, < and >60 µg/L). Co+, Cr+, HHS and OHS results of 1 2017 were analysed in order to show a correlation between ion levels and clinical scores .
Results: Clinical scores were similar in group 1 and 2. Differences were observed comparing the group 1 and 2 with group 3 for both variables.
Discussion and Conclusions: Surveillance algorithms have been introduced by health authorities. Nevertheless, the indication to revision surgery is not simple especially in those cases in which a discrepancy between clinic and investigations is present. In this study clinical scores seem to be less important than ion levels in the evaluation of outcomes and in order to plan the correct management in the majority of cases. Larger studies are needed to highlight the real importance of clinical scores in the decision making after these type of implants.
2. Gomez P, Morcuende J. Early attempts at hip arthroplasty: 1700s to 1950s. Iowa Orthop J 2005; 25: 25e9.
3. Rang M. Anthology of Orthopaedics. London: E&S; 1966. p. 243.
4. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The Operation of the Century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508e19.
5. Crawford DA, Adams JB, Morris MJ, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Revision of Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: Midterm Outcomes of 203 Consecutive Cases. J Arthroplasty 2019 Aug; 34(8): 1755-60.
6. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 1614e20.
7. Anissian HL, Stark A, Gustafson A, Good V, Clarke IC. Metal-on-metal bearing in hip prosthesis generates 100-fold less wear debris than metal-on-polyethylene. Acta Orthop Scand 1999; 70: 578e82.
8. Udofia IJ, Jin ZM. Lubrication analysis of metal-on-metal hip joint prostheses in a free pendulum machine. In: Tribology Biomechanical System; 2001. 102e9.
9. Smith TM, Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Emerson Jr RH, Mallory TH. Metal-on metal total hip arthroplasty with large heads may prevent early dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441: 137e42.
10. Li Z, Chen ZF, Liu JX, Liu F. Comparative mid-term follow-up study of primary total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal and metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Orthop Surg 2018; 10: 312e20.
11. Grübl A, Marker M, Brodner W, et al. Long-term follow-up of metal-on-metal total hip replacement. J Orthop Res 2007 Jul; 25(7): 841-8.
12. Sonntag R, Reinders J, Rieger J, Heitzmann D, Kretzer J. Hard-on-Hard lubrication in the artificial hip under dynamic loading conditions. PLoS One 2013; 8: e71622.
13. Vassiliou K, Scholes SC, Unsworth A. Laboratory studies on the tribology of hard bearing hip prostheses: ceramic on ceramic and metal on metal. Proc Inst Mech Eng 2007; 221: 11e20.
14. Bishop NE, Hothan A, Morlock MM. High friction moments in large hard-on hard hip replacement bearings in conditions of poor lubrication. J Orthop Res 2013; 31: 807e13.
15. Browne JA, Bechtold CD, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Failed metal-on metal hip arthroplasties: a spectrum of clinical presentations and operative findings. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2010; 468 :2313e20.
16. Levy YD, Ezzet KA. Poor short term outcome with a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 :1212e7.
17. Langton DJ, Sidaginamale RP, Avery P, et al. Retrospective cohort study of the performance of the Pinnacle metal on metal (MoM) total hip replacement: a single-centre investigation in combination with the findings of a national retrieval centre. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e007847.
18. Matharu GS, Judge A, Eskelinen A, Murray DW, Pandit HG. What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? Acta Orthop 2018 Feb; 89(1): 29-39.
19. Jacobs J J, Cooper H J, Urban R M, Wixson R L, Della Valle CJ . What do we know about taper corrosion in total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (4): 668-9.
20. Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Kwon Y M, et al. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(8): 1019-24.
21. Fehring T K, Odum S, Sproul R, Weathersbee J. High frequency of adverse local tissue reactions in asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (2): 517-22.
22. Hannemann F, Hartmann A, Schmitt J, et al. European multidisciplinary consensus statement on the use and monitoring of metal-on-metal bearing for total hip replacement and hip resurfacing. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (3): 263-71.
23. Matharu G S, Mellon S J, Murray D W, Pandit H G. Follow-up of metal on- metal hip arthroplasty patients is currently not evidence based or cost effective. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (8): 1317-23.
24. Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu K J. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties: A comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (8): 1037-41.
25. Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (8): 1010-14.
26. Anissian HL, Stark A, Gustafson A, Good V, Clarke IC. Metal-on-metal bearing in hip prosthesis generates 100-fold less wear debris than metal-on-polyethylene. Acta Orthop Scand 1999;7 0: 578e82.
27. Smith A J, Dieppe P, Howard P W, Blom A W, National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: Analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855): 1759-66.
28. Smith A J, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom A W, National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: Analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2012; 379 (9822): 1199-204.
29. AOANJRR. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report. 2016; https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2016.
30. NJR. National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man 13th Annual Report. 2016; http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/ Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/13th Annual Report/07950 NJR Annual Report 2016 ONLINE REPORT.pdf.
31. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Hallab NJ, Natu S, Nargol AV. Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: A consequence of excess wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (1): 38-46.
32. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, et al. Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (8): 1011-16.
33. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90(7): 847-51.
34. Kwon YM, Glyn-Jones S, Simpson DJ, et al. Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92(3): 356-61.
35. Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Jameson SS, et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: The influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (2): 164-71.
36. Matthies A, Underwood R, Cann P, et al. Retrieval analysis of 240 metal-on-metal hip components, comparing modular total hip replacement with hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (3): 307-14.
37. Langton DJ, Sidaginamale R, Lord JK, Nargol AV, Joyce TJ. Taper junction failure in large-diameter metal-on-metal bearings. Bone Joint Res 2012; 1(4): 56-63.
38. Jacobs JJ, Cooper HJ, Urban RM, Wixson RL, Della Valle CJ. What do we know about taper corrosion in total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (4): 668-9.
39. Hart A J, Satchithananda K, Liddle A D, Sabah S A, McRobbie D, Henckel J, Cobb J P, Skinner J A, Mitchell A W. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: A case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (4): 317-25.
40. McMinn D. Modern hip resurfacing. London: Springer; 2009. xvi, 430 pp.
41. Sidaginamale RP, Joyce TJ, Lord JK, et al. Blood metal ion testing is an effective screening tool to identify poorly performing metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. Bone Joint Res 2013; 2 (5): 84-95.
42. Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pynsent P B, McMinn D J. The validity of serum levels as a surrogate measure of systemic exposure to metal ions in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (6): 736-41.
43. Jantzen C, Jørgensen HL, Duus BR, Sporring SL, Lauritzen JB. Chromium and cobalt ion concentrations in blood and serum following various types of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a literature overview. Acta Orthop. 2013 Jun; 84(3): 229-36.
44. Granchi D, Savarino LM, Ciapetti G, Baldini N. Biological effects of metal degradation in hip arthroplasties. Crit Rev Toxicol 2018 Feb; 48(2): 170-93.
45. Bernstein M, Desy NM, Petit A, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Antoniou J. Long-term follow-up and metal ion trend of patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2012 Sep; 36(9): 1807-12.
46. Chan FW, Bobyn JD, Medley JB, Krygier JJ, Yue S, Tanzer M. Engineering issues and wear performance of metal on metal hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996 Dec; (333): 96-107.
47. Lainiala OS, Moilanen TP, Hart AJ, Huhtala HS, Sabah SA, Eskelinen AP. Higher blood cobalt and chromium levels in patients with unilateral metal on-metal total hip arthroplasties compared to hip resurfacings. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (6): 1261-6.
48. Van Der Straeten C, Grammatopoulos G, Gill H S, Calistri A, Campbell P, De Smet K A. The 2012 Otto Aufranc Award: The interpretation of metal ion levels in unilateral and bilateral hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (2): 377-85.
49. Chen Z, Pandit H, Taylor A, Gill H, Murray D, Ostlere S. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: A radiological perspective. Eur Radiol 2011; 21 (3): 485-91.
50. Johnston C, Kerr J, Ford S, O’Byrne J, Eustace S. MRI as a problem-solving tool in unexplained failed total hip replacement following conventional assessment. Skeletal Radiol 2007; 36 (10): 955-61.
51. Matharu GS, Blanshard O, Dhaliwal K, Judge A, Murray DW, Pandit HG. Patient and radiographic factors help to predict metal-on-metal hip resurfacings with evidence of a pseudotumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99(3): 214-22.
52. Nishii T, Sakai T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H, Sugano N. Is ultrasound screening reliable for adverse local tissue reaction after hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12): 2239-44.
53. Lloyd J, Starks I, Wainwright T, Middleton R. Metal-on-metal resurfacing and the cost to the nation: A conservative estimate of the unexpected costs required to implement the new metal-on-metal follow-up programme in the UK. In: Knahr K, editor. Total Hip Arthroplasty Tribological Considerations and Clinical Consequences. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. p. 45-51.
54. Siddiqui IA, Sabah SA, Satchithananda Ket al. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of MARS MRI and ultrasound of the painful metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (4): 375-82.
55. Kwon Y M, Lombardi A V, Jacobs J J, Fehring T K, Lewis C G, Cabanela ME. Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with metal-on metal hip arthroplasty: Consensus statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, and the Hip Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (1): e4.
56. Liddle AD, Satchithananda K, Henckel J, et al. Revision of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in a tertiary center: A prospective study of 39 hips with between 1 and 4 years of follow-up. Acta Orthop 2013; 84 (3): 237-45.
57. Hussey DK, Madanat R, Donahue GSet al. Scoring the current risk stratification guidelines in follow-up evaluation of patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: A proposal for a metal-on-metal risk score supporting clinical decision making. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (22): 1905-12.
58. van der Veen HC, Reininga IH, Zijlstra WP, et al. Pseudotumour incidence, cobalt levels and clinical outcome after large head metal-on-metal and conventional metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty: mid-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2015 Nov; 97-B(11): 1481-7.