We report our failures with the use of the R3 metal-on-metal bearing. Forty six patients had an R3 acetabular system metal-on-metal THR in our centre between March 2007 and March 2009. All operations were performed using femoral components and appropriately matched femoral heads manufactured by Smith & Nephew. Twelve patients underwent revision surgery for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). The median acetabular inclination was 40 degrees (range 21.1-49.1) and the median acetabular anteversion was 7.5 degrees (range 3.3-10.4). The median serum Cobalt was 9.9 µg/L (range 3.1-45) and the median serum Chromium was 5.8 µg/L (range 1.8-19.3). The time to revision was 39.2 months (range 13-53). Our current failure rate is 24%.
GirardJBocquetDAutissierGFouilleronNFronDMigaudHMetal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients thirty years of age or younger.J Bone Joint Surg Am201092142419–2426
2.
MalviyaAHollandJPPseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 10-year Newcastle experience.Acta Orthop Belg2009754477–483
3.
KwonYMThomasPSummerBLymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.J Orthop Res2010284444–450
4.
KwonYMOstlereSJMcLardy-SmithPAthanasouNAGillHSMurrayDW“Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study.J Arthroplasty2011264511–518
5.
AndersonHTomsAPCahirJGGoodwinRWWimhurstJNolanJFGrading the severity of soft tissue changes associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements: reliability of an MR grading system.Skeletal Radiol2011403303–307
6.
PanditHGlyn-JonesSMcLardy-SmithPPseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.J Bone Joint Surg Br2008907847–851
7.
LangtonDJJamesonSSJoyceTJAccelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement.J Bone Joint Surg Br20119381011–1016
SmithAJDieppePVernonKPorterMBlomAWNational Joint Registry of England and Wales.Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales.Lancet201237998221199–1204
NaalFDPilzRMunzingerUHerscheOLeunigMHigh revision rate at 5 years after hip resurfacing with the Durom implant.Clin Orthop Relat Res201146992598–2604
14.
GrammatopoulosGPanditHGlyn-JonesSOptimal acetabular orientation for hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Br20109281072–1078
15.
LangtonDJJamesonSSJoyceTJWebbJNargolAVThe effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip.J Bone Joint Surg Br20089091143–1151
16.
TreacyRBMcBrydeCWPynsentPBBirmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005872167–170
17.
MalekIAKingASharmaHThe sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of raised plasma metal ion levels in the diagnosis of adverse reaction to metal debris in symptomatic patients with a metal-on-metal arthroplasty of the hip.J Bone Joint Surg Br20129481045–1050
18.
KrismerMBauerRTschupikJMayrhoferPEBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components.J Biomech199528101225–1236
19.
StoeclBBiedermannRAuckenthalerTAnte- and retroversion measurement of cups by EBRA.J Bone Joint Surg Br200183Suppl II179
20.
OchsnerPEMeasurement of the acetabular migration by using standard AP radiographs (EBRA): technique, results and practical application in clinical work.J Bone Joint Surg Br199880Suppl 133
WillertHGBuchhornGHFayyaziAMetal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints.A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am200587128–36
7th Annual Report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales.Available at: www.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/Portals/0/NJR 7th Annual Report 2010.pdf.Accessed August132012
25.
SteffenRTPanditHPPalanJThe five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series.J Bone Joint Surg Br2008904436–441
26.
BackDLDalzielRYoungDShimminAEarly results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings.An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005873324–329
27.
TreacyRBMcBrydeCWShearsEPynsentPBBirmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years.J Bone Joint Surg Br201193127–33
28.
McMinnDJDanielJZiaeeHPradhanCIndications and results of hip resurfacing.Int Orthop2011352231–237
29.
LangtonDJJamesonSSJoyceTJHallabNJNatuSNargolAVEarly failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: A consequence of excess wear.J Bone Joint Surg Br201092138–46
30.
Glyn-JonesSPanditHKwonYMDollHGillHSMurrayDWRisk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Br200991121566–1574
31.
UnderwoodRMatthiesACannPSkinnerJAHartAJA comparison of explanted Articular Surface Replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing components.J Bone Joint Surg Br20119391169–1177
32.
Wynn-JonesHMacnairRWimhurstJSilent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.Acta Orthop2011823301–307
33.
MatthiesAUnderwoodRCannPRetrieval analysis of 240 metal-on-metal hip components, comparing modular total hip replacement with hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Br2011933307–314
