Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 138, Issue 7, pp 1021–1028 | Cite as

Periprosthetic acetabular radiolucency progression in mid-term follow-up of the articular surface replacement hip system

  • Sean J. Matuszak
  • Vincent P. Galea
  • James W. Connelly
  • Janus Christiansen
  • Orhun Muratoglu
  • Henrik Malchau
Hip Arthroplasty
  • 144 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Recent registry studies show that aseptic loosening secondary to osteolysis is the second leading cause of hip implant failure in patients implanted with metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings. The primary aim of our study was to report on the progression of acetabular osteolysis during mid-term follow-up in patients treated with MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary aim was to identify independent predictors of osteolytic lesion progression.

Materials and methods

A total of 805 patients (805 hips) were included in this study (541 MoM HRA, 264 MoM THA) from a prospective, international clinical registry of the Articular Surface Replacement Hip System. Patients were enrolled a median of 6.6 years from surgery. Osteolytic lesion progression was defined either as any lesion developing de novo, or as an existing lesion progressing from radiolucency to osteolysis during the study period (range 0.5–4.3 years).

Results

The number of cases with any osteolysis or radiolucency was 21 (3.9%) for ASR HRA and 29 (11.0%) for ASR XL THA at enrollment and increased to 69 (12.8%) for ASR HRA and 41 (15.5%) for ASR XL THA after follow-up. Osteolytic lesion progression was found in 66 (12.2%) ASR HRA patients and 31 (11.7%) ASR XL THA patients. Multivariate models determined that lower acetabular version angle (OR 0.963, p = 0.011) and elevated whole blood chromium (OR 1.110, p = 0.044) were independent predictors of osteolytic lesion progression in ASR HRA.

Conclusion

We suggest that physicians of patients implanted with ASR HRA implants closely monitor patients with higher chromium levels and lower version angles, as they are at increased risk for osteolytic lesion progression, and we recommend annual radiographic follow-up on all patients with ASR implants.

Keywords

Osteolysis Radiolucency Metal-on-metal THA HRA 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by DePuy Synthes (Grant number 1200220692).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The following authors declare a conflict of interest: OM—receives royalties from: Zimmer, Biomet, Corin, Iconacy, Renovis, Conformis, Aston Medical, Meril Healthcare, Arthrex, Mako; owns stock in: Cambridge Polymer Group, Orthopedic Technology group; receives institutional support from: Mako, DePuy. HM—receives royalties from Zimmer, Biomet, Corin, RSA Biomedical; owns stock in RSA Biomedical; receives institutional support from: Biomet, Smith & Nephew, DePuy, Zimmer, Mako.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilkinson JM (2012) Metal-on-metal hip prostheses: where are we now? Bmj 345:e7792–e7792.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7792 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen D (2012) How safe are metal-on-metal hip implants? Bmj 344:e1410–e1410.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1410 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh G, Meyer H, Ruetschi M et al (2013) Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a page in orthopedic history? J Biomed Mater Res Part A 101:3320–3326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    AOANJRR (2009) Hip and Knee Arthroplasty—Annual Report 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laaksonen I, Donahue GS, Madanat R et al (2017) Outcomes of the recalled articular surface replacement metal-on-metal hip implant system: a systematic review. J Arthroplast 32:341–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD (2011) History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2262–2277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1872-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim RH, Dennis DA, Carothers JT (2008) Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 23:44–46.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AOANJRR (2016) Metal on metal bearing surface conventional hip arthroplasty—supplementary report 2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dowd JE, Sychterz CJ, Young AM, Engh CA (2000) Characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates: association with and prediction of osteolysis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 82:1102–1107.  https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200008000-00006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magone K, Luckenbill D, Goswami T (2015) Metal ions as inflammatory initiators of osteolysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135:683–695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA (2002) A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 17:649–661.  https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2002.33664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ries M, Link T (2013) Monitoring and risk of progression of osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 23:274–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhse.2007.02.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, Clohisy JC, Beaulé PE, Della Valle CJ (2016) The adult hip, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madanat R, Hussey DK, Donahue GS et al (2016) Early lessons from a worldwide, multicenter, followup study of the recalled articular surface replacement hip system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:166–174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4456-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galea VP, Laaksonen I, Matuszak SJ et al (2017) Mid-term changes in blood metal ion levels after articular surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Bone Jt J 99-B:33–40.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-1250.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanrusselt J, Vansevenant M, Vanderschueren G, Vanhoenacker F (2015) Postoperative radiograph of the hip arthroplasty: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging 6:591–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0438-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Renner L, Schmidt-Braekling T, Faschingbauer M, Boettner F (2016) Do cobalt and chromium levels predict osteolysis in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1657–1662.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2565-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tardy N, Maqdes A, Boisrenoult P et al (2015) Small diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty at 13 years—a follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:929–936.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.09.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Randelli F, Banci L, Favilla S et al (2013) Radiographically undetectable periprosthetic osteolysis with asr implants: the implication of blood metal ions. J Arthroplasty 28:1259–1264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Asaad A, Hart A, Khoo MMY et al (2015) Frequent femoral neck osteolysis with Birmingham mid-head resection resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:3770–3778.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4348-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gutman G, Hershkovich O, Amit Y, Israeli A (2013) Catastrophic failure due to massive osteolysis of both acetabular and femoral components in a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a demonstrative case report. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:225–229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1088-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vendittoli PA, Rivière C, Roy AG et al (2013) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with 28-mm diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a randomised study with six to nine years’ follow-up. Bone Jt J 95 B:1464–1473.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suh DH, Han SB, Yun HH et al (2013) Characterization of progression of pelvic osteolysis after cementless total hip arthroplasty. Computed tomographic study. J Arthroplast 28:1851–1855.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hart AJ, Skinner JA, Henckel J et al (2011) Insufficient acetabular version increases blood metal ion levels after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2590–2597.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1930-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith J, Lee D, Bali K et al (2014) Does bearing size influence metal ion levels in large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty? A comparison of three total hip systems. J Orthop Surg Res 9:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Langton DJ, Sprowson AP, Joyce TJ et al (2009) Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91–B:1287–1295.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B10.22308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hart AJ, Ilo K, Underwood R et al (2011) The relationship between the angle of version and rate of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal resurfacings: a prospective, CT-based study. Bone Jt J 93-B:315–320.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B3.25545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matthies AK, Henckel J, Cro S et al (2014) Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Orthop Res 32:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22459 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ et al (2008) The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 90-B:1143–1151.  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B9.20785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R et al (1978) Dislocations after total hip replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shon WY, Gupta S, Biswal S et al (2009) Pelvic osteolysis relationship to radiographs and polyethylene wear. J Arthroplasty 24:743–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Puri L, Wixson RL, Stern SH et al (2002) Use of helical computed tomography for the assessment of acetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84-A:609–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kitamura N, Pappedemos PC, Duffy PR et al (2006) The value of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs for evaluating pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:239–245.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000246554.41058.8d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Claus AM, Engh CA, Sychterz CJ et al (2003) Radiographic definition of pelvic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sean J. Matuszak
    • 1
  • Vincent P. Galea
    • 1
  • James W. Connelly
    • 1
  • Janus Christiansen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Orhun Muratoglu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrik Malchau
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory, Orthopaedic DepartmentMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations