Dataset Information

The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.

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.

SUBMITTER: Sands D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5264575 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.

Sands David D Schemitsch Emil H EH

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20160825 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>The purpose of this paper is to provide an up ...[more]

PMID: 28167866

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrecision medicine has been adopted in a range of clinical settings where omics data have led to greater characterisation of disease and stratification of patients into subcategories of phenotypes and pathologies. However, in orthopaedics, precision medicine lags behind other disciplines such as cancer. Joint registries have now amassed a huge body of data pertaining to implant performance which can be broken down into performance statistics for different material types in different cohorts of patients. The National Joint Registry of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) is now one of the largest datasets available. Other registries such as those from Sweden and Australia however contain longer follow-up. Together, these registries can provide a wealth of informative for the orthopaedics community when considering which implant to give to any particular patient.Questions/purposesWe aim to explore the benefits of combining multiple large data streams including joint registries, published data on osteoarthritis (OA) pathogenesis and pathology and data concerning performance of each implant material combination in terms of biocompatibility. We believe that this analysis will provide a comprehensive overview of implant performance hopefully aiding surgeons in making more informed choices about which implant should be used in which patient.MethodsData from three joint registries were combined with established literature to highlight the heterogeneity of OA disease and the different clinical outcomes following arthroplasty with a range of material types.ResultsThis review confirms that joint registries are unable to consider differences in arthritis presentation or underlying drivers of pathology. OA is now recognised to present with varying pathology with differing morbidity in different patient populations. Equally, just as OA is a heterogeneous disease, there are disparate responses to wear debris from different material combinations used in joint replacement surgery. This has been highlighted by recent high-profile scrutiny of early failure of metal-on-metal total hip replacement (THR) implants.ConclusionsBringing together data from joint registries, biomarker analysis, phenotyping of OA patients and knowledge of how different patients respond to implant debris will lead to a truly personalised approach to treating OA patients, ensuring that the correct implant is given to the correct patient at the correct time.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17). RESULTS:The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included. CONCLUSIONS:Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Project description:BackgroundModern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was introduced as a bone-preserving method of joint reconstruction for young and active patients; however, the large diameter of the bearing surfaces is of concern for potentially increased metal ion release.Patients and methods71 patients (< 65 years old) were randomly assigned to receive either a resurfacing (R) hip arthroplasty (n = 38) or a conventional metal-on-metal (C) hip arthroplasty (n = 33). Functional outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were analyzed preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.ResultsAll functional outcome scores improved for both groups. At 12 and 24 months, the median UCLA activity score was 8 in the R patients and 7 in the C patients (p < 0.05). At 24 months, OHS was median 16 in C patients and 13 in R patients (p < 0.05). However, in spite of randomization, UCLA scores also appeared to be higher in R patients at baseline. Satisfaction was similar in both groups at 24 months. Cobalt concentrations were statistically significantly higher for R patients only at 3 and 6 months. Chromium levels remained significantly higher for R patients until 24 months. No pseudotumors were encountered in either group. One R patient was revised for early aseptic loosening and in 2 C patients a cup insert was exchanged for recurrent dislocation.InterpretationR patients scored higher on UCLA, OHS, and satisfaction at some time points; however, as for the UCLA, preoperative levels were already in favor of R. The differences, although statistically significant, were of minor clinical importance. Chromium blood levels were statistically significantly higher for R patients at all follow-up measurements, whereas for cobalt this was only observed up to 6 months. The true value of resurfacing hip arthroplasty over conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty will be determined by longer follow-up and a possible shift of balance between their respective (dis)advantages.

Dataset Information

The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The Role of Metal-on-Metal Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing: Review Article.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets