Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nakano N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5525522 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC3242952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeHip resurfacing arthroplasty is claimed to allow higher activity levels and to give better quality of life than total hip arthroplasty. In this literature review, we assessed the therapeutic value of hip resurfacing arthroplasty as measured by functional outcome.MethodsAn extensive literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.Results9 patient series, 1 case-control study, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included. Clinically and statistically significant improvement in sporting activity and hip scores were found in 10 studies.InterpretationStudies with low levels of evidence have shown improvement in various different hip scores and one RCT showed better outcomes with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. There is no high-level evidence to prove that there is improved clinical outcome using hip resurfacing arthroplasty. More randomized research needs to be done.
| S-EPMC3216077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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/purposesThe 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.MethodsA 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'.ResultsThe initial search retrieved 1240 articles. Twenty-two articles were selected and used in the review.ConclusionMetal-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.
| S-EPMC5264575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hip resurfacing is an attractive concept because it preserves rather than removes the femoral head and neck. Most early designs had high failure rates, but one unique design had a femoral stem. Because that particular device appeared to have better implant survival, this study assessed the clinical outcome and long-term survivorship of a hip resurfacing prosthesis. Four hundred forty-five patients (561 hips) were retrospectively reviewed after a minimum of 20 years' followup or until death; 23 additional patients were lost to followup. Patients received a metal femoral prosthesis with a small curved stem. Three types of acetabular reconstructions were used: (1) cemented polyurethane; (2) metal-on-metal; and (3) polyethylene secured with cement or used as the liner of a two-piece porous-coated implant. Long-term results were favorable with the metal-on-metal combination only. The mean overall Harris hip score was 92 at 2 years of followup. None of the 121 patients (133 hips) who received metal-on-metal articulation experienced failure. The failure rate with polyurethane was 100%, and the failure rate with cemented polyethylene was 41%. Hip resurfacing with a curved-stem femoral component had a durable clinical outcome when a metal-on-metal articulation was used.
| S-EPMC2311483 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFemoroacetabular impingement and degenerative hip osteoarthritis (OA) affect athletes across a wide variety of sports. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has emerged as a surgical treatment for active individuals with end-stage hip OA to provide pain relief and allow return to high-impact activities. Return to professional sports after HRA has not been well characterized.Purpose/hypothesisThe aim of this study was to report on a series of elite athletes in a variety of sports who underwent HRA. We hypothesized that professional and elite-level athletes would be able to return to sports after HRA for end-stage hip OA.Study designCase series; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsA retrospective case series was conducted on professional athletes who underwent HRA at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using the posterolateral approach. Athletes' return to play and sport-specific performance statistics were obtained using self-reported and publicly available data sources. Athletes were matched to an age- and performance-based cohort to determine changes in performance-based metrics.ResultsEight professional athletes were identified, including 2 baseball pitchers, 1 ice hockey defenseman, 1 foil fencer, 1 men's doubles tennis player, 1 basketball player, 1 ultramarathoner, and 1 Ironman triathlete. All 8 patients returned to sports; 6 of 8 (75%) patients were able to return for at least 1 full season at a professional level after surgery. There were no significant differences between performance statistics for athletes who returned to play and their preoperative performance measures for the years leading up to surgery or the age- and performance-matched cohort.ConclusionHRA remains a surgical alternative for end-stage hip OA in young, high-impact, active patients. While the primary goals of surgery are pain control and quality of life improvement, it is possible to return to elite-level sporting activity after HRA.
| S-EPMC8113959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHip resurfacing is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty.Questions/purposeWe aimed to compare an experienced hip surgeon's initial clinical results of hip resurfacing with a new cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA).MethodsThe first 55 consecutive hip resurfacing arthroplasties were compared to 100 consecutive cementless THAs using a cylindrical tapered femoral stem. The learning curve between the two procedures was compared utilizing the incidence of reoperation, complications, Harris Hip Scores (HHS), and implant survivorship.ResultsThe reoperation rate was significantly higher (p = 0.019) for hip resurfacing (14.5%) versus THA (4%). The overall complication rate between the two groups was not significantly different (p = 0.398). Preoperative HHS were similar between the two groups (p = 0.2). The final mean HHS was similar in both the resurfacing and THA groups (96 vs. 98.3, respectively, p < 0.65). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with an endpoint of reoperation suggests complications occurred earlier in the resurfacing group versus the THA group (log-rank test, p = 0.007).ConclusionsIn comparison to our initial experience with a cementless THA stem, operative complications occur earlier and more often after hip resurfacing during the learning period. The clinical outcomes in both groups however are similar at 5 year follow-up.
| S-EPMC3757479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Three-dimensional planning of hip arthroplasty is associated with better visualisation of anatomical landmarks and enhanced mapping for preoperative implant sizing, which can lead to a decrease in surgical time and complications. Despite the advantages of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), it is considered a technically challenging procedure and associated with inaccurate implant placement. This study aimed to examine the validity, reliability, and usability of preoperative 3D Hip Planner software for HRA. Fifty random cases of various hip osteoarthritis severity were planned twice by two junior trainees using the 3D Hip Planner within a one-month interval. Outcome measures included femoral/cup implant size, stem-shaft angle, and cup inclination angle, and were assessed by comparing outcomes from 2D and 3D planning. An adapted unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) survey was used for software usability. Bland–Altman plots between 3D and 2D planning for stem-shaft and inclination angles showed mean differences of 0.7 and −0.6, respectively (r = 0.93, p < 0.001). Stem-shaft and inclination angles showed inter-rater reliability biases of around −2° and 3°, respectively. Chi-square and Pearson’s correlation for femoral implant size showed a significant association between the two assessors (r = 0.91, p < 0.001). The 3D test–retest coefficient of repeatability for stem-shaft and inclination angles were around ±2° and ±3°, respectively, with a strong significant association for femoral implant size (r = 0.98, p < 0.001). Survey analyses showed that 70–90% agreed that 3D planning improved expectancy in four domains. 3D hip planner appears to be valid and reliable in preoperative HRA and shows significant potential in optimising the quality and accuracy of surgical planning.
| S-EPMC10451941 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4048407 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8436430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purpose - Gait analysis performed under increased physical demand may detect differences in gait between total (THA) versus resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA), which are not measured at normal walking speed. We hypothesized that patients after RHA would reach higher walking speeds and inclines compared with THA. Additionally, an RHA would enable a more natural gait when comparing the operated with the healthy contralateral hip. Patients and methods - From a randomized controlled trial comparing THA with RHA with at least 5 years' follow-up patients with a UCLA score of more than 3 points (n = 34) were included for an instrumented treadmill gait analysis. 25 patients with a unilateral implant (primary analysis-16 THA versus 9 RHA) and 9 patients with a bilateral implant (sub-analysis-n = 5 RHA + THA; n = 4 THA + THA). Spatiotemporal parameters, ground reaction forces, and range of motion were recorded at increasing walking speeds and inclines. Functional outcome scores were obtained. Results - At a normal walking speed of 1.1 m/s and at increasing inclines no differences were recorded in gait between the 2 groups with a unilateral hip implant. With increasing walking speed the RHA group reached a higher top walking speed (TWS) (adjusted difference 0.07 m/s, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.25) compared with THA. Additionally, RHA patients tolerated more weight on the operated side at TWS (155 N, CI 49-261) and as such weight-bearing approached the unaffected contralateral side. For the RHA group a "between leg difference" of 8 N (CI 3-245) was measured versus -129 N (CI -138 to -29) for THA (adjusted difference 144 N, CI 20-261). Hip flexion of the operated side at TWS was higher after RHA compared with THA (adjusted difference 8°, CI 1.7-14). Interpretation - In this study RHA patients reached a higher walking speed, and preserved a more normal weight acceptance and a greater range of hip flexion against their contralateral healthy leg as compared with patients with a THA.
| S-EPMC6534262 | biostudies-literature