Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail

Background A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evide...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2012, Vol.94 (4), p.e22(1)-e22(10)
Hauptverfasser: Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth), Matthies, Ashley, BSc, Henckel, Johann, MRCS, Ilo, Kevin, BSc, Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth), Noble, Philip C., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e22(10)
container_issue 4
container_start_page e22(1)
container_title Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
container_volume 94
creator Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth)
Matthies, Ashley, BSc
Henckel, Johann, MRCS
Ilo, Kevin, BSc
Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth)
Noble, Philip C., PhD
description Background A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss. Methods We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith & Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty. Results Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p < 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p < 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p < 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0021-9355(12)70569-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0021935512705696</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0021935512705696</els_id><sourcerecordid>1_s2_0_S0021935512705696</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S00219355127056963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqljrsKwjAYhTMoWC-PIGTUIfqnV7sIIpYuTiqOIbTRpoa0JFXo21uL-AJO58Lh8CE0p7CiQMP1CcClJPaCYEHdZQRBGJNwgJxfPUJja0sA8H2IHLS56FwY23CdS33H16LFR9FwRSpNeoNTWeOdaQpT1YrbRgqLEy7VFA1vXFkx--oEbZPDeZ8S0YWXFIZlSmqZcfUQrbBl9TS62zHKrMuA9ZwfHur2kKH398EbBrpNDA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail</title><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth) ; Matthies, Ashley, BSc ; Henckel, Johann, MRCS ; Ilo, Kevin, BSc ; Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth) ; Noble, Philip C., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth) ; Matthies, Ashley, BSc ; Henckel, Johann, MRCS ; Ilo, Kevin, BSc ; Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth) ; Noble, Philip C., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Background A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss. Methods We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith &amp; Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty. Results Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p &lt; 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p &lt; 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p &lt; 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of &lt;5 μm/year. Conclusions In a large number of patients with unexplained hip pain leading to revision of a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, the acetabular cup orientation was satisfactory and the material loss rate was low. We suspect that patient-specific factors may have been responsible for the failure in a large proportion of these patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9355</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9355(12)70569-6</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Orthopedics</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2012, Vol.94 (4), p.e22(1)-e22(10)</ispartof><rights>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthies, Ashley, BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henckel, Johann, MRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilo, Kevin, BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noble, Philip C., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail</title><title>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</title><description>Background A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss. Methods We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith &amp; Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty. Results Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p &lt; 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p &lt; 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p &lt; 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of &lt;5 μm/year. Conclusions In a large number of patients with unexplained hip pain leading to revision of a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, the acetabular cup orientation was satisfactory and the material loss rate was low. We suspect that patient-specific factors may have been responsible for the failure in a large proportion of these patients.</description><subject>Orthopedics</subject><issn>0021-9355</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNqljrsKwjAYhTMoWC-PIGTUIfqnV7sIIpYuTiqOIbTRpoa0JFXo21uL-AJO58Lh8CE0p7CiQMP1CcClJPaCYEHdZQRBGJNwgJxfPUJja0sA8H2IHLS56FwY23CdS33H16LFR9FwRSpNeoNTWeOdaQpT1YrbRgqLEy7VFA1vXFkx--oEbZPDeZ8S0YWXFIZlSmqZcfUQrbBl9TS62zHKrMuA9ZwfHur2kKH398EbBrpNDA</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth)</creator><creator>Matthies, Ashley, BSc</creator><creator>Henckel, Johann, MRCS</creator><creator>Ilo, Kevin, BSc</creator><creator>Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth)</creator><creator>Noble, Philip C., PhD</creator><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail</title><author>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth) ; Matthies, Ashley, BSc ; Henckel, Johann, MRCS ; Ilo, Kevin, BSc ; Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth) ; Noble, Philip C., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S00219355127056963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Orthopedics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matthies, Ashley, BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henckel, Johann, MRCS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilo, Kevin, BSc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noble, Philip C., PhD</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hart, Alister J., MD, FRCS(Orth)</au><au>Matthies, Ashley, BSc</au><au>Henckel, Johann, MRCS</au><au>Ilo, Kevin, BSc</au><au>Skinner, John, FRCS(Orth)</au><au>Noble, Philip C., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>94</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e22(1)</spage><epage>e22(10)</epage><pages>e22(1)-e22(10)</pages><issn>0021-9355</issn><abstract>Background A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss. Methods We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith &amp; Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty. Results Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p &lt; 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p &lt; 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p &lt; 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of &lt;5 μm/year. Conclusions In a large number of patients with unexplained hip pain leading to revision of a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, the acetabular cup orientation was satisfactory and the material loss rate was low. We suspect that patient-specific factors may have been responsible for the failure in a large proportion of these patients.</abstract><doi>10.1016/S0021-9355(12)70569-6</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9355
ispartof Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2012, Vol.94 (4), p.e22(1)-e22(10)
issn 0021-9355
language eng
recordid cdi_elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0021935512705696
source Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Orthopedics
title Understanding Why Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties Fail
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T11%3A52%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Understanding%20Why%20Metal-on-Metal%20Hip%20Arthroplasties%20Fail&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20joint%20surgery.%20American%20volume&rft.au=Hart,%20Alister%20J.,%20MD,%20FRCS(Orth)&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=94&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e22(1)&rft.epage=e22(10)&rft.pages=e22(1)-e22(10)&rft.issn=0021-9355&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0021-9355(12)70569-6&rft_dat=%3Celsevier%3E1_s2_0_S0021935512705696%3C/elsevier%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0021935512705696&rfr_iscdi=true