Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 2, pp 406–412 | Cite as

Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: Does Early Clinical Outcome Justify the Chance of an Adverse Local Tissue Reaction?

  • Charles A. EnghJr.
  • Henry HoEmail author
  • Charles A. Engh
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2009

Abstract

Larger diameter metal-on-metal (MOM) bearing hips offer the possibility of low wear and reduced risk of dislocation. We reviewed the first 126 patients (131 hips) who had a large-head (36-mm) MOM bearing surface to report the early clinical outcome and especially to determine the occurrence of dislocation and wear-related concerns. The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 5.6 years; range, 5–7 years). We found a 98% survivorship free of component revision. No hips had been revised for dislocation. Three hips (2%) had small femoral osteolytic lesions. Because this series of patients did not completely represent our experience with this bearing surface, we queried our database for the 828 patients (945 hips) that had the same bearing surface from April 2001 to December 2008. Three patients (0.3%) had a local reaction to the MOM bearing surface on revision-retrieved tissue. All three patients presented with elevated inflammatory indices, and a purulent-appearing joint effusion at revision. The possibility of infection and the delay in diagnosing a reaction to the MOM bearing with pathology complicated management of these three patients. We continue to use this bearing surface because the 5-year results are comparable to other bearing surfaces, however, we counsel patients that a local adverse reaction to the MOM bearing surface may be a factor contributing to reoperation.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective clinical cohort. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Keywords

Bearing Surface Bear Surface Gruen Zone Component Revision Local Tissue Reaction 
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 Pat Campbell PhD,Director, Implant Retrieval Lab, Orthopaedic Hospital UCLA, Los Angeles, California for performing the tissue analysis on our cases.

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.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1614–1620.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:128–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campbell P, Shimmin A, Walter L, Solomon M. Metal sensitivity as a cause of groin pain in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:1080–1085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;86:177–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:18–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delaunay CP. Metal-on-metal bearings in cementless primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):35–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Longjohn DB, Dubois B, Murken R. Total hip arthroplasty with use of the Metasul metal-on-metal articulation. Four to seven-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:789–798.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dowson D, Hardaker C, Flett M, Isaac GH. A hip joint simulator study of the performance of metal-on-metal joints: Part II: design. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8):124–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hallab N, Merritt K, Jacobs JJ. Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:428–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huo MH, Gilbert NF. What’s new in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2133–2146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ. Loosening and osteolysis associated with metal-on-metal bearings: A local effect of metal hypersensitivity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1171–1172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TV. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing: an independent center analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 Suppl 1):50–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1183–1191.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long WT, Dorr LD, Gendelman V. An American experience with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):29–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacDonald SJ. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: the concerns. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:86–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Migaud H, Jobin A, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Laffargue P, Duquennoy A. 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(8 Suppl 3):23–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mikhael MM, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ. Failure of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty mimicking hip infection. A report of two cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:443–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milosev I, Trebse R, Kovac S, Cör A, Pisot V. Survivorship and retrieval analysis of Sikomet metal-on-metal total hip replacements at a mean of seven years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1173–1182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park YS, Moon YW, Lim SJ, Yang JM, Ahn G, Choi YL. Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1515–1521.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rieker CB, Schön R, Köttig P. Development and validation of a second-generation metal-on-metal bearing: laboratory studies and analysis of retrievals. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):5–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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
  24. 24.
    Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Köster G, Lohmann CH. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zicat B, Engh CA, Gokcen E. Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:432–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles A. EnghJr.
    • 1
  • Henry Ho
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles A. Engh
    • 1
  1. 1.Anderson Orthopaedic Research InstituteAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations