Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Increased risk for extended acetabular reconstruction in failed hip resurfacing as compared to failed total hip arthroplasty

  • Hip Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Hip resurfacing (HR) is intended to preserve the femoral bone stock during primary arthroplasty. On the other hand, little has been reported regarding the intraoperative need of bone reconstruction for extended acetabular defects during hip resurfacing revision. Thus, the aim of the presented study was to identify whether there is an increased need for acetabular bone reconstruction in HR revision surgery.

Materials and methods

We analyzed the data of 38 patients who underwent 39 conversions from a HR to a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Acetabular bone defects and the respective revision technique were compared against a temporary cohort of patients undergoing revision surgery of a conventional THA.

Results

In 29 HR patients revision required either autogenous or allogenous impaction bone grafting to adequately manage acetabular host bone degradation. In 10 cases additional implantation of a reinforcement device was necessary. Compared to the THA cohort revision of failed HR is associated with a significantly increased risk of higher grade bone defects (Paprosky classification) and extended acetabular reconstruction (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that revision of failed HR devices is associated with an increased risk for extensive acetabular defects. Furthermore, the preoperative radiographic assessment of HR devices often underestimates the intraoperative acetabular defect. Surgeons should be aware of this fact not to technically underestimate HR revision procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ (2009) The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(7):1614–1620. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chan FW, Bobyn JD, Medley JB, Krygier JJ, Tanzer M (1999) The Otto Aufranc Award. Wear and lubrication of metal-on-metal hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:10–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, Ingham E, Stone MH, Farrar R, Fisher J (2001) Quantitative analysis of wear and wear debris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng 11(2):143–157

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Krantz N, Miletic B, Migaud H, Girard J (2012) Hip resurfacing in patients under thirty years old: an attractive option for young and active patients. Int Orthop 36(9):1789–1794. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1555-0

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Girard J, Roy AG (2006) A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(8):997–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Silva M, Heisel C, Schmalzried TP (2005) Metal-on-metal total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:53–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Quesada MJ, Marker DR, Mont MA (2008) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty 23:69–73. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP (2006) Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(8):454–463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Triclot P (2010) Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010). Int Orthop 35(2):201–206. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1180-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC (2007) Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):735–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garrett SJ, Bolland BJ, Yates PJ, Gardner EM, Latham JM (2011) Femoral revision in hip resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. JArthroplasty. 26(8):1214–1218. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW (2012) National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 380(9855):1759–1766. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60989-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang DC, Tatman P, Mehle S, Gioe TJ (2013) Cumulative revision rate is higher in metal-on-metal THA than metal-on-polyethylene THA: analysis of survival in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(6):1920–1925. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2821-1

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh G, Meyer H, Ruetschi M, Chamaon K, Feuerstein B, Lohmann CH (2013) Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a page in orthopedic history? J Biomed Mater Res A. 101(11):3320–3326. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.34619

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Haughom BD, Erickson BJ, Hellman MD, Jacobs JJ (2015) Do complication rates differ by gender after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res [Epub ahead of print]

  16. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CL, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW (2008) Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B7.20213

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hannemann F, Hartmann A, Schmitt J, Lützner J, Seidler A, Campbell P, Delaunay CP, Drexler H, Ettema HB, García-Cimbrelo E, Huberti H, Knahr K, Kunze J, Langton DJ, Lauer W, Learmonth I, Lohmann CH, Morlock M, Wimmer MA, Zagra L, Günther KP (2013) European multidisciplinary consensus statement on the use and monitoring of metal-on-metal bearings for total hip replacement and hip resurfacing. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 99(3):263–271. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.01.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hartmann A, Hannemann F, Lützner J, Seidler A, Drexler H, Günther KP, Schmitt J (2013) Metal ion concentrations in body fluids after implantation of hip replacements with metal-on-metal bearing—systematic review of clinical and epidemiological studies. PLoS One 8(8):e70359. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070359

  19. Parvizi J, Gehrke T (2014) International Consensus Group on periprosthetic joint infection. Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 29(7):1331. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Gruen T, Amstutz HC (2004) Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rigby M, Kenny PJ, Sharp R, Whitehouse SL, Gie GA, Timperley JA (2011) Acetabular impaction grafting in total hip replacement. Hip Int. 21(4):399–408. doi:10.5301/HIP.2011.8587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Loughead JM, Starks I, Chesney D, Matthews JN, McCaskie AW, Holland JP (2006) Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(1):31–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Kamali A, Maggiani F, Glyn-Jones S, Gill HS, Murray DW, Athanasou N (2013) The correlation of wear with histological features after failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(12):e81. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00775

  24. Holton C, Bobak P, Wilcox R, Jin Z (2013) Impaction grafted bone chip size effect on initial stability in an acetabular model: mechanical evaluation. J Orthop 10(4):177–81. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2013.09.004

  25. Schmidutz F, Fottner A, Wanke-Jellinek L, Steinbrück A, Jansson V, Mazzochian F (2012) Hip resurfacing requires larger acetabular cups than conventional hip replacement: a comparative analysis of 100 hips, based on radiographic templating. Acta Orthop Belg 78(4):484–491

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tanzer M, Tanzer D, Smith K (2012) Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(2):541–546. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2020-x

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jaiswal A, Gilbert RE, Sunil Kumar KH, Carrothers AD, Kuiper JH, Richardson JB (2011) Function and survival after revision of hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 21(5):610–615. doi:10.5301/HIP.2011.8679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gilbert RE, Cheung G, Carrothers AD, Meyer C, Richardson JB (2010) Functional results of isolated femoral revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(7):1600–1604. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00698

  29. Sandgren B, Crafoord J, Garellick G, Carlsson L, Weidenhielm L, Olivecrona H (2013) Computed tomography vs. digital radiography assessment for detection of osteolysis in asymptomatic patients with uncemented cups: a proposal for a new classification system based on computer tomography. J Arthroplasty 28(9):1608–1613. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nam D, Barrack RL, Potter HG (2014) What are the advantages and disadvantages of imaging modalities to diagnose wear-related corrosion problems? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(12):3665–3673. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3579-9

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Orthopedic Surgery, HELIOS ENDO-Klinik Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

      O. Jakobs, S. Schmidl, B. Schoof, T. Gehrke & M. Gebauer

    2. Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

      O. Jakobs

    3. Sportsclinic Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

      J. Beckmann

    Authors
    1. O. Jakobs
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. S. Schmidl
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. B. Schoof
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. J. Beckmann
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. T. Gehrke
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. M. Gebauer
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to O. Jakobs.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

    Additional information

    O. Jakobs and S. Schmidl contributed equally and thus are shared first authors.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Jakobs, O., Schmidl, S., Schoof, B. et al. Increased risk for extended acetabular reconstruction in failed hip resurfacing as compared to failed total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 413–424 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2364-x

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2364-x

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation