To compare revision rates of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRS) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the primary causes for revisions.
Methods
The PubMed database was queried for potentially relevant articles addressing MoMTHA and MoMHRS, a total of 51 articles were included.
Results
The review includes a total number of 5,399 MoMHRS and 3,244 THA prosthesis and the reasons for prosthesis failure were divided into 7 categories and the main causes discussed. The overall MoMTHA revision rate was 4.7% after 6.9 years. MoMHRS revision rate was 5.9% after 5.7 years. The odds ratio was 1.25 (1.03:1.53) 95% CI (p = 0.03) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).
The studies of hip prostheses were separated into 2 categories of short- and long-term (more or less than 5 years). Short-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 4.5% after 4.8 years, and for MoMHRS 4.0% after 4.2 years. The odds ratio was 1.09 (0.82:1.43) 95% CI (0 = 0.56) (MoMTHA vs. MoMHRS). Long-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 5.2% after 7.7 years and 8.2% after 7.6 years for MoMHRS. The odds ratio was 1.58 (1.53:1.96) 95% CI (p = 0.0001) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).
Revision causes were divided into 7 main categories. The most common cause for revision for both MoMTHA and MoMHRS was loosening 47.6% vs. 37.7%, fracture (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 19.62%), metal reactions (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 26.92%) infection (MoMTHA 12.08%; MoMHRS 6.54%), instability (MoMTHA 9.13%; MoMHRS 2.69%), manufacturer defect 6.73% for MoMTHA and nonreported for MoMHRS, and miscellaneous (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 6.54%) was stated.
Interpretation
The comparison of MoMHRS and MoMTHA revision rates showed no difference in the short term, however in the longer term, the revision rate of MoMHRS was significantly higher than for MoMTHA. The linear increase in revision rate of MoMHRS may indicate a progression in failure.
MacphersonGJBreuschSJMetal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a critical review.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2011;131(1):101–110
2.
GarbuzDSTanzerMGreidanusNVMasriBADuncanCPThe John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.Clin Orthop Relat Res2010; 468(2):318–325
3.
DelaunayCPetitILearmonthIDOgerPVendittoliPAMetal-on-metal bearings total hip arthroplasty: the cobalt and chromium ions release concern.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2010;96(8):894–904
4.
Wynn-JonesHMacnairRWimhurstJet al.Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.Acta Orthop2011;82(3):301–307
5.
JantzenCJørgensenHLDuusBRSporringSLLauritzenJBChromium and cobalt ion concentrations in blood and serum following various types of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.Acta Orthop2013;84(3):229–36
6.
HuttJRBuschCHughesRAFailure of a metal on metal hip prosthesis presenting as a destructive soft tissue mass due to ALVAL.Rheumatol Int2011;31(10):1401–1402
7.
MurrayDWGrammatopoulosGPanditHGundleRGillHSMcLardy-SmithPThe ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series.J Bone Joint Surg Br2012;94(9):1180–1186
8.
NeumannDRThalerCHitzlWHuberMHofstädterTDornULong-term results of a contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year follow-up study.J Arthroplasty2010;25(5):700–708
9.
BrowneJABechtoldCDBerryDJHanssenADLewallenDGFailed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a spectrum of clinical presentations and operative findings.Clin Orthop Relat Res2010;468(9):2313–2320
10.
AltmanDGPractical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall/CRC. 1991.
11.
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Modern metal-on-metal hip implants - a technology overview.American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rosemont2011
12.
HugKTWattersTSVailTPBolognesiMPThe withdrawn ASR™ THA and hip resurfacing systems: how have our patients fared over 1 to 6 years?Clin Orthop Relat Res2013;471(2):430–438
13.
AmstutzHCBallSTLe DuffMJDoreyFJResurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup.Clin Orthop Relat Res2007;460(460):159–164
14.
EnghCAJrHoHEnghCAMetal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: does early clinical outcome justify the chance of an adverse local tissue reaction?Clin Orthop Relat Res2010;468(2):406–412
15.
HartmannALütznerJKirschnerSWitzlebWCGünther KPDo Survival Rate and Serum Ion Concentrations 10 Years AfterMetal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Provide Evidence for Continued Use?Orthop Clin North Am2005;36(2):203–213 ix.
16.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJJohnsonAJSocket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship.Clin Orthop Relat Res2012;470(11):3127–3133
17.
CortenKMacDonaldSJHip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?Clin Orthop Relat Res2010;468(2):351–357
18.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJCampbellPAWiskLETakamuraKMComplications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Orthop Clin North Am2011;42(2):207–230 viii. viii.
19.
WillertHGBuchhornGHFayyaziAet al.Metal on metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints.A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005;87(1):28–36
20.
The Danish registry of Hip Arthroplasty. DHR 2012: The Danish registry of Hip Arthroplasty, 2012.
21.
PoratMParviziJSharkeyPFBerendKRLombardiAVJrBarrackRLCauses of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470(2):382–387
22.
MontMAMarkerDRSmithJMUlrichSDMcGrathMSResurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up.Clin Orthop Relat Res2009;467(1):66–71
23.
DorrLDLongWTSirianniLCampanaMWanZThe argument for the use of Metasul as an articulation surface in total hip replacement.Clin Orthop Relat Res2004;(429):80–85
24.
DelaunayCPMetal-on-metal bearings in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty2004198 Suppl 335–40
25.
ParkYSMoonYWLimSJYangJMAhnGChoiYLEarly osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement.J Bone Joint Surg Am2005;87(7):1515–1521
26.
HwangKTKimYHKimYSChoiIYTotal hip arthroplasty using cementless grit-blasted femoral component: a minimum 10-year follow-up study.J Arthroplasty2012;27(8):1554–1561
27.
BernsteinMDesyNMPetitAZukorDJHukOLAntoniouJLong-term follow-up and metal ion trend of patients with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.Int Orthop2012;36(9):1807–1812
28.
KorovessisPPetsinisGRepantiMRepantisTMetallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006;88(6):1183–1191
29.
NikolaouVSPetitADebiparshadKHukOLZukorDJAntoniouJMetal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty - five- to 11-year follow-up.Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis2011691_supplS77–S83
30.
MilosevITrebseRKovacSCörAPisotVSurvivorship and retrieval analysis of Sikomet metal-on-metal total hip replacements at a mean of seven years.J Bone Joint Surg Am2006;88(6):1173–1182
31.
DastaneMRLongWTWanZChaoLDorrLDMetal-on-metal hip arthroplasty does equally well in osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis.Clin Orthop Relat Res2008;466(5):1148–1153
32.
InnmannMMGotterbarmTKretzerJPet al.Minimum ten-year results of a 28-mm metal-on-metal bearing in cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients fifty years of age and younger.Int Orthop2014;38(5):929–934
33.
MiloševIKovačSTrebšeRLevašičVPišotVComparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.J Bone Joint Surg Am2012;94(19):1756–1763
34.
NishiiTSuganoNMikiHTakaoMKoyamaTYoshikawaHFive-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients.J Arthroplasty2007;22(2):176–183
35.
McBrydeCWTheivendranKThomasAMTreacyRBCPynsentPBThe influence of head size and sex on the outcome of birmingham hip resurfacing.J Bone Joint Surg Am. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010
36.
TreacyRBCMcBrydeCWPynsentPBBirmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005;87(2):167–170
37.
HeilpernGNShahNNFordyceMJBirmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Br2008;90(9):1137–1142
38.
De SmetKAKA. Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty.Orthop Clin North Am2005;36(2):203–213 ix.
39.
StulbergBNTrierKKNaughtonMZadzilkaJDResults and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial.J Bone Joint Surg Am200890Suppl 321–26
40.
GrossTPLiuFHip resurfacing with the Biomet Hybrid ReCap-Magnum system: 7-year results.J Arthroplasty2012;27(9):1683–1689.e2
41.
MarkerDRSeylerTMJinnahRHDelanoisREUlrichSDMontMAFemoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study.J Arthroplasty2007;22(7 Suppl 3):66–71
42.
ArndtJMWeraGDGoldbergVMAn initial experience with hip resurfacing versus cementless total hip arthroplasty.HSS J2013;9(2):145–149
43.
NewmanMABarkerKLPanditHMurrayDWOutcomes after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: could we achieve better function?Arch Phys Med Rehabil2008;89(4):660–666
44.
RevellMPMcBrydeCWBhatnagarSPynsentPBTreacyRBMetal-on-metal hip resurfacing in osteonecrosis of the femoral head.J Bone Joint Surg Am200688Suppl 398–103
45.
HartmannALütznerJKirschnerSWitzlebWCGüntherKPDo survival rate and serum ion concentrations 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing provide evidence for continued use?Clin Orthop Relat Res2012;470(11):3118–3126
46.
CoulterGYoungDADalzielREShimminAJBirmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre.J Bone Joint Surg Br2012;94(3):315–321
47.
Le DuffMJAmstutzHCDoreyFJMetal-on-metal hip resurfacing for obese patients.J Bone Joint Surg Am2007;89(12):2705–2711
48.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJCampbellPAGruenTAWiskLEClinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am2010;92(16):2663–2671
49.
PollardTCBakerRPEastaugh-WaringSJBannisterGCTreatment 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 Br2006;88(5):592–600
