Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 2, pp 318–325 | Cite as

The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing versus Large-diameter Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

  • Donald S. Garbuz
  • Michael Tanzer
  • Nelson V. Greidanus
  • Bassam A. Masri
  • Clive P. Duncan
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2009

Abstract

Resurfacing arthroplasty has become an attractive option for young patients who want to maintain a high activity level. One recent study reported modestly increased activity levels for patients with resurfacing compared to standard total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare clinical outcomes of resurfacing versus large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. We randomized 107 patients deemed eligible for resurfacing arthroplasty to have either resurfacing or standard THA. Patients were assessed for quality-of-life outcomes using the PAT-5D index, WOMAC, SF-36, and UCLA activity score. The minimum followup was 0.8 years (mean, 1.1 years; range, 0.8–2.2 years). Of the 73 patients followed at least one year, both groups reported improvement in quality of life on all outcome measures. There was no difference in quality of life between the two arms in the study. Serum levels of cobalt and chromium were measured in a subset of 30 patients. In both groups cobalt and chromium was elevated compared to baseline. Patients receiving a large-head metal-on-metal total hip had elevated ion levels compared to the resurfacing arm of the study. At 1 year, the median serum cobalt increased 46-fold from baseline in patients in the large-head total hip group, while the median serum chromium increased 10-fold. At 1 year, serum cobalt was 10-fold higher and serum chromium 2.6-fold higher than in the resurfacing arm. Due to these excessively high metal ion levels, the authors recommend against further use of this particular large-head total hip arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence: Level I, randomized clinical trial. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Femoral Head Femoral Component Bearing Surface Abduction Angle Chromium Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Timothy Pearce MD, FRCS(C) and Robert Korbyl MD, FRCS(C) for recruiting patients at Red Deer General Hospital; Lorna Ottley, Daphné Savoy, Jennifer Zander and Karen Smith for patient recruitment and study coordination; and Eric Sayre for his help with the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:28–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Kossovsky N, Clarke IC. Mechanism and clinical significance of wear-debris induced osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;276:7–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoniou J, Zukor DJ, Mwale F, Minarik W, Petit A, Huk OL. Metal ion levels in the blood of patients after hip resurfacing: a comparison between twenty-eight and thirty-six-millimeter-head metal-on-metal prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:142–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Archibeck MJ, Jacobs JJ, Roebuck KA, Glant TT. The basic science of periprosthetic osteolysis. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:185–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry, 2007 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrrreport_2007.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2008.
  6. 6.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry, 2007 Annual Report (Supplement). Available at: http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrr_2007_supplementary.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2008.
  7. 7.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or the knee. J Rheumatol. 1988b;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:799–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brodner W, Bitzan P, Meisinger V, Kaider A, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Kotz R. Serum cobalt levels after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2168–2173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clohisy JC, Harris WH. The Harris-Galante uncemented femoral component in primary total hip replacement at 10 years. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:915–917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dorr LD, Hilton KR, Wan Z, Markovich GD, Bloebaum R. Modern metal on metal articulation for total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;333:108–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldberg JR, Gilbert JL, Jacobs JJ, Bauer TW, Paprosky W, Leurgans S. A multicenter retrieval study of the taper interfaces of modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;401:149–161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hallab NJ, Mikecz K, Vermes C, Skipor A, Jacobs JJ. Orthopaedic implant related metal toxicity in terms of human lymphocyte reactivity to metal-protein complexes produced from cobalt-base and titanium-base implant alloy degradation. Mol Cell Biochem. 2001;222:127–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: The problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:66–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hellman EJ, Capello WN, Feinberg JR. Omnifit cementless total hip arthroplasty: A 10-year average followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;364:164–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years: an independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1431–1438.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iida H, Kaneda E, Takada H, Uchida K, Kawanabe K, Nakamura T. Metallosis due to impingement between the socket and the femoral neck in a metal-on-metal bearing total hip prosthesis. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:400–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jacobs JJ, Skipor AK, Doorn PF, Campbell P, Schmalzried TP, Black J, Amstutz HC. Cobalt and chromium concentrations in patients with metal on metal total hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:S256–S263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacobs JJ, Skipor AK, Patterson LM, Hallab NJ, Paprosky WG, Black J, Galante JO. Metal release in patients who have had a primary total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, controlled, longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1447–1458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Criterior validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:7–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kopec JA, Badii M, McKenna M, Lima VD, Sayre EC, Dvorak M. Computerized adaptive testing in back pain: validation of the CAT-5D-QOL. Spine. 2008;33:1384–1390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    London Laboratory Services Group, Trace Elements Laboratory, London ON Canada. March 27, 2008. Available at: http://www.lhsc.on.ca/lab/metals/icpms1.htm. Accessed October 2008.
  24. 24.
    Loughead JM, Starks I, Chesney D, Matthews JNS, McCaskie AW, Holland JP. Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:31–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Chess DG, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Cleland D, Leung F. Metal-on-metal versus polyethylene in hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:282–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Söderman P. The Swedish Total Hip registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84 Suppl 2:2–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    McKellop HA. Bearing surfaces in total hip replacements: State of the art and future developments. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:165–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McMinn DJW, Pynsent PB, De Cock CAEM, Isbister ES, Treacy RBC. Results of metal on metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000 (Proc Suppl II);82.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CLM, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:847–851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Laupacis A, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. A double-blind study of 250 cases comparing cemented with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Cost-effectiveness and its impact on health-related quality of life. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;298:156–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Savarino L, Granchi D, Ciapetti G, Stea S, Donati ME, Zinghi G, Fontanesi G, Rotini R, Montanaro L. Effects of metal ions on white blood cells of patients with failed total joint arthroplasties. J Biomed Materials Res. 1999;47:543–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:463–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:167–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal- on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int. 2006;16:73–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vendittoli PA, Mottard S, Roy AG, Dupont C, Lavigne M. Chromium and cobalt ion release following the Durom high carbon content, forged metal-on-metal surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:441–448.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewcz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donald S. Garbuz
    • 1
  • Michael Tanzer
    • 2
  • Nelson V. Greidanus
    • 1
  • Bassam A. Masri
    • 1
  • Clive P. Duncan
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Lower Limb Reconstruction and Oncology, Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedics (Arthroplasty)McGill UniversityMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations