Adverse reaction to metal debris after small-head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: an increasing concern

Abstract

Introduction:

Failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have become an area of common focus among surgeons performing hip replacements. Several authors have reported data on the prevalence of these masses, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients after either large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty, with a large variability of rate. To our knowledge, few data are reported on the association of this lesion with the use of small-head diameter MoM.

Methods:

15 hips that were revised for ARMD in small-head MoM THA were included in this study. We focused our attention on the difficulties of diagnosis and treatment and also on the histologic aspects of the harvested pathologic tissue.

Results:

The histological examination of our cases showed a presence of lymphocytic infiltrate suggesting a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the metal of type IV (ALVAL), but different from each other in term of the prevalence of the cellular component. Osteolysis and severe soft tissue damage were also observed. Revision resulted in remission of the lesion and successful implant.

Conclusions:

Our observation suggests that the evidence of ARMD should be considered even in case of small-head MoM arthroplasty and therefore these patients should be followed scrupulously with 2nd level diagnostic tools such as magnetic resonance imaging with metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS-MRI) and metal ion levels at least once. Further investigations are necessary to establish the real prevalence of this phenomenon in the whole population of small-head MoM THAs.

Keywords

Adverse reaction to metal debris hip arthroplasty hip revision surgery metal-on-metal pseudotumour small-head tribology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Arthroplasty Registry, 2016 Annual Report, https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2016 (2016, accessed 2 June 2017).

Amstutz

Beaulé

Dorey

et al . Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 28–39.

Treacy

McBryde

Pynsent

PB.

Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 167–170.

Back

Dalziel

Young

et al . Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 324–329.

Pollard

Baker

Eastaugh-Waring

et al . Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 592–600.

Willert

Buchhorn

Göbel

et al . Wear behavior and histopathology of classic cemented metal on metal hip endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 329(Suppl): S160–S186.

Keegan

Learmonth

Case

CP.

Orthopaedic metals and their potential toxicity in the arthroplasty patient: a review of current knowledge and future strategies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 567–573.

Doorn

Mirra

Campbell

et al . Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 329(Suppl): S187–S205.

Pandit

Vlychou

Whitwell

et al . Necrotic granulomatous pseudotumours in bilateral resurfacing hip arthoplasties: evidence for a type IV immune response. Virchows Arch 2008; 453: 529–534.

10.

Hart

Satchithananda

Liddle

et al . 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: 317–325.

11.

Pandit

Glyn-Jones

McLardy-Smith

et al . Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 847–851.

12.

Kwon

Ostlere

McLardy-Smith

et al . “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26: 511–518.

13.

Williams

Greidanus

Masri

et al . Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 2164–2171.

14.

van der Weegen

Smolders

Sijbesma

et al . High incidence of pseudotumours after hip resurfacing even in low risk patients; results from an intensified MRI screening protocol. Hip Int 2013; 23: 243–249.

15.

Langton

Jameson

Joyce

et al . 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: 38–46.

16.

Delaunay

Bonnomet

Clavert

et al . THA using metal-on-metal articulation in active patients younger than 50 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 340–346.

17.

Migaud

Jobin

Chantelot

et al . Cementless metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age: comparison with a matched control group using ceramic-on-polyethylene after a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19(Suppl. 3): 23–28.

18.

Randelli

Banci

D’Anna

et al . Cementless Metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties at 13 years. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 186–192.

19.

Günther

Schmitt

Campbell

et al . Consensus statement “Current evidence on the management of metal-on-metal bearings”–April 16, 2012. Hip Int 2013; 23: 2–5.

20.

Zagra

Maccario

Mondini

et al . Treatment of failures related to articulation material in THA. A comprehensive algorithm of surgical options and open questions. Hip Int 2014; 24(Suppl. 10): S48–S57.

21.

Doorn

Campbell

Amstutz

HC.

Metal versus polyethylene wear particles in total hip replacements. A review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 329(Suppl): S206–S216.

22.

Doorn

Campbell

Worrall

et al . Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 42: 103–111.

23.

Willert

Buchhorn

Fayyazi

et al . Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 28–36.

24.

Natu

Sidaginamale

Gandhi

et al . Adverse reactions to metal debris: histopathological features of periprosthetic soft tissue reactions seen in association with failed metal on metal hip arthroplasties. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65: 409–418.

25.

Daniel

Holland

Quigley

et al . Pseudotumors associated with total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 86–93.

26.

Kwon

Thomas

Summer

et al . Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2010; 28: 444–450.

27.

Matthies

Skinner

Osmani

et al . Pseudotumors are common in well-positioned low-wearing metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 1895–1906.

28.

van Lingen

Zagra

Ettema

et al . Sequelae of large-head metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: current status and future prospects. EFORT Open Rev 2016; 1: 345–353.

29.

Bradberry

Wilkinson

Ferner

RE.

Systemic toxicity related to metal hip prostheses. Clinical Toxicol (Phila) 2014; 52: 837–847.

30.

Matthies

Henckel

Cro

et al . Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Orthop Res 2014; 32: 167–174.

31.

Desy

Bergeron

Petit

et al . Surgical variables influence metal ion levels after hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1635–1641.

32.

Hartmann

Hannemann

Lutzner

et al . Metal ion concentrations in body fluids after implantation of hip replacements with metal-on-metal bearing–systematic review of clinical and epidemiological studies. PLoS One 2013; 8: e70359.

33.

Grubl

Marker

Brodner

et al . Long-term follow-up of metal-on-metal total hip replacement. J Orthop Res 2007; 25: 841–848.

34.

Eswaramoorthy

Moonot

Kalairajah

et al . The Metasul metal-on-metal articulation in primary total hip replacement: clinical and radiological results at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 1278–1283.

35.

Repantis

Vitsas

Korovessis

Poor mid-term survival of the low-carbide metal-on-metal Zweymuller-plus total hip arthroplasty system: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of ten years, of a previous report*. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e331–e334.

36.

Baur

Honle

Willert

et al . Pathological findings in tissue surrounding revised metal/metal articulations. Orthopade 2005; 34: 225–226, 228–233.

37.

Gruber

Böck

Trattnig

et al . Cystic lesion of the groin due to metallosis: a rare long-term complication of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 923–927.

38.

Morawietz

Classen

Schroder

et al . Proposal for a histopathological consensus classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane. J Clin Pathol 2006; 59: 591–597.

39.

D’Angelo

Testa

Binda

et al . Histological features of pseudotumor after small head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2015; 29(Suppl): 57–62.

40.

Campbell

Ebramzadeh

Nelson

et al . Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2321–2327.