Dataset Information

The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Conventional total hip replacement (THR) may be felt to carry too high a risk of failure over a patient's lifetime, especially in young people. There is increasing interest in metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoM) as this offers a bone-conserving option for treating those patients who are not considered eligible for THR. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of MoM for treatment of hip disease, and compare it with alternative treatments for hip disease offered within the UK.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out to identify the relevant literature on MoM published before 2002. As watchful waiting and total hip replacement are alternative methods commonly used to alleviate the symptoms of degenerative joint disease of the hip, we compared MoM with these.

Results

The data on the effectiveness of MoM are scarce, as it is a relatively new technique and at present only short-term results are available.

Conclusion

It is not possible to make any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of MoM based on these early results. While the short-term results are promising, it is unclear if such results would be replicated in more rigorous studies, and what the long-term performance might be. Further research is needed which ideally should involve long-term randomised comparisons of MoM with alternative approaches to the clinical management of hip disease.

SUBMITTER: Wyness L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC544574 | biostudies-literature | 2004 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002.

Wyness Laura L Vale Luke L McCormack Kirsty K Grant Adrian A Brazzelli Miriam M

BMC health services research 20041227 1

<h4>Background</h4>Conventional total hip replacement (THR) may be felt to carry too high a risk of failure over a patient's lifetime, especially in young people. There is increasing interest in metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoM) as this offers a bone-conserving option for treating those patients who are not considered eligible for THR. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of MoM for treatment of hip disease, and compare it with alternative treatments for hip disease offered withi ...[more]

PMID: 15620345

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundPatellar resurfacing is optional during total knee replacement (TKR). Some surgeons always resurface the patella, some never resurface, and others selectively resurface. Which resurfacing strategy provides optimal outcomes is unclear. We assessed the effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing, and selective resurfacing in primary TKR.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched to November 2021 for randomised-control trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes for two or more resurfacing strategies (resurfacing, no resurfacing, or selective resurfacing) in primary TKR. Observational studies were included if limited or no RCTs existed for resurfacing comparisons. Outcomes assessed were patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and further surgery. Study-specific relative risks [RR] were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsWe identified 33 RCTs involving 5,540 TKRs (2,727 = resurfacing, 2,772 = no resurfacing, 41 = selective resurfacing). One trial reported on selective resurfacing. Patellar resurfacing reduced anterior knee pain compared with no resurfacing (RR = 0.65 (95% CI = 0.44-0.96)); there were no significant differences in PROMs. Resurfacing reduced the risk of revision surgery (RR = 0.63, CI = 0.42-0.94) and other complications (RR = 0.54, CI = 0.39-0.74) compared with no resurfacing. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Limited observational evidence (5 studies, TKRs = 215,419) suggested selective resurfacing increased the revision risk (RR = 1.14, CI = 1.05-1.22) compared with resurfacing. Compared with no resurfacing, selective resurfacing had a higher risk of pain (RR = 1.25, CI = 1.04-1.50) and lower risk of revision (RR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99).ConclusionsLevel 1 evidence supports TKR with patellar resurfacing over no resurfacing. Resurfacing has a reduced risk of anterior knee pain, revision surgery, and complications, despite PROMs being comparable. High-quality RCTs involving selective resurfacing, the most common strategy in the UK and other countries, are needed given the limited observational data suggests selective resurfacing may not be effective over other strategies.

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:BackgroundThe metal-on-metal large-diameter-head (MoM-LDH) hip replacements increased in popularity during the start of the twenty-first century. Subsequently reports raised concerns regarding adverse reactions due to elevated chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) concentrations as well as high rates of other complications and revisions. The purpose was to compare Harris Hip Score and SF-36 at 5-years follow up following MoM-LDH total hip arthroplasty (MoM-LDH-THA) or MoM hip resurfacing (MoM-HR).MethodsThe study was conducted between November 2006 to January 2012 in a tertiary health care center in Denmark. Patients with primary or secondary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive a Magnum (MoM-LDH-THA) or a Recap (MoM-HR) prosthesis. Randomization was computer generated and allocation was concealed in an opaque envelope. Neither patients nor care provider were blinded. Primary outcome was Harris Hip Score at 5-years follow up.ResultsSeventy-five were included and allocated to the MoM-LDH-THA (n = 39) and MoM-HR (n = 36) group. The study was prematurely stopped due to numerous reports of adverse events in patients with MoM hip replacements. Thirty-three in the MoM-LDH-THA and 25 in the MoM-HR group were available for primary outcome analysis. Median Harris Hip Score was 100 (IQR: 98-100) for MoM-LDH-THA and 100 (IQR: 93-100) for MoM-HR (p = 0.486). SF-36 score was high in both groups with no significant difference between groups.ConclusionHarris Hip Score and SF-36 score was excellent in both groups with no significant difference at 5-years follow up. Our findings suggest that there is no clinical important difference between the two prostheses implanted 5 years after implantation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04585022 , Registered 23 September 2020 - Retrospectively registered. This study was not prospectively registered in a clinical trial database since it was not an entirely implemented standard procedure in the international orthopedic society when the study was planned.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The effectiveness of metal on metal hip resurfacing: a systematic review of the available evidence published before 2002.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets