High Prevalence of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris in Small-headed ASR™ Hips
There has been increasing concern of metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements regarding adverse reactions to metal debris. Information regarding prevalence and risk factors for these adverse reactions is scarce.
The primary purposes of our study were to determine (1) the prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris among patients who received small-headed (< 50 mm) Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) prostheses in hip resurfacing procedures or the ASR™ XL prostheses during THAs at our institution, and (2) the risk factors for adverse reactions to metal debris and if they are different in hip resurfacing replacements compared with THAs?
Small-headed ASR™ prostheses were used in 482 operations (424 patients) at our institution. After the recall of ASR™ prostheses, we established a systematic screening program to find patients with adverse reactions to metal debris. At a mean of 4.9 years (range, 0.2–8.1 years) postoperatively, 379 patients (435 hips) attended a screening program, which consisted of clinical evaluation, whole blood cobalt and chromium measurements, and cross-sectional imaging.
At followup, 162 hips (34%) have been revised. The majority (85%) were revised owing to causes related to adverse reactions to metal debris. The 7-year survivorship was 51% for the ASR™ hip replacement cohort and 38% for the ASR™ XL THA cohort, respectively. Reduced cup coverage was an independent risk factor for adverse reactions to metal debris in both cohorts. High preoperative ROM, use of the Corail® stem, and female gender were associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions to metal debris only in patients undergoing THA.
Adverse reactions to metal debris are common with small-headed ASR™ prostheses. Risk factors for these adverse reactions differ between hip resurfacing procedures and THAs. Our results suggest a more complicated failure mechanism in THAs than in hip resurfacing procedures.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
- 1.Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Wisk LE, Takamura KM. Complications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:207–230, viii.Google Scholar
- 2.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual report 2012. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/annual-reports-2012. Accessed January 12, 2012.
- 12.Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, Sabah SA, McRobbie D, Henckel J, Cobb JP, Skinner JA, Mitchell AW. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Langton DJ, Sprowson AP, Joyce TJ, Reed M, Carluke I, Partington P, Nargol AV. Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1287–1295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.MHRA. Medical device alert: DePuy ASR™ hip replacement implants. Ref: MDA/2010/069. Available at: www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dts-bs/documents/medicaldevicealert/con093791.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2012.
- 22.MHRA. Medical device alert: All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements. Ref: MDA/2012/036. Available at: www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dts-bs/documents/medicaldevicealert/con155767.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2012.
- 23.National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 9th annual report 2012. Date last accessed: Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/9th_annual_report/NJR%209th%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2012.
- 27.Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Porter M, Blom AW; National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Risk of cancer in first seven years after metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with other bearings and general population: linkage study between the National Joint Registry of England and Wales and hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;344:e2383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar