Revision rates for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty - a systematic review

被引:7
|
作者
Sorensen, Sofie-Amalie L. Ras [1 ]
Jorgensen, Henrik L. [2 ]
Sporing, Sune L. [1 ]
Lauritzen, Jes B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
[2] Univ Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Hosp, Dept Clin Biochem, Copenhagen, Denmark
关键词
Arthroplasty; Complications; Hip resurfacing; Metal-on-metal; Revision; Total hip arthroplasty; 10-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; BEARINGS; SURVIVORSHIP; 5-YEAR; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OSTEONECROSIS; PROSTHESES; CHROMIUM; YOUNGER; COBALT;
D O I
10.5301/hipint.5000444
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose: To compare revision rates of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRS) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the primary causes for revisions. Methods: The PubMed database was queried for potentially relevant articles addressing MoMTHA and MoMHRS, a total of 51 articles were included. Results: The review includes a total number of 5,399 MoMHRS and 3,244 THA prosthesis and the reasons for prosthesis failure were divided into 7 categories and the main causes discussed. The overall MoMTHA revision rate was 4.7% after 6.9 years. MoMHRS revision rate was 5.9% after 5.7 years. The odds ratio was 1.25 (1.03:1.53) 95% CI (p = 0.03) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA). The studies of hip prostheses were separated into 2 categories of short-and long-term (more or less than 5 years). Short-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 4.5% after 4.8 years, and for MoMHRS 4.0% after 4.2 years. The odds ratio was 1.09 (0.82:1.43) 95% CI (0 = 0.56) (MoMTHA vs. MoMHRS). Long-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 5.2% after 7.7 years and 8.2% after 7.6 years for MoMHRS. The odds ratio was 1.58 (1.53:1.96) 95% CI (p = 0.0001) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA). Revision causes were divided into 7 main categories. The most common cause for revision for both MoMTHA and MoMHRS was loosening 47.6% vs. 37.7%, fracture (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 19.62%), metal reactions (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 26.92%) infection (MoMTHA 12.08%; MoMHRS 6.54%), instability (MoMTHA 9.13%; MoMHRS 2.69%), manufacturer defect 6.73% for MoMTHA and nonreported for MoMHRS, and miscellaneous (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 6.54%) was stated. Interpretation: The comparison of MoMHRS and MoMTHA revision rates showed no difference in the short term, however in the longer term, the revision rate of MoMHRS was significantly higher than for MoMTHA. The linear increase in revision rate of MoMHRS may indicate a progression in failure.
引用
收藏
页码:515 / 521
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Penrose, Colin T.
    Seyler, Thorsten M.
    Wellman, Samuel S.
    Bolognesi, Michael P.
    Lachiewicz, Paul F.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2016, 474 (10) : 2134 - 2142
  • [42] Metal-on-Metal Hips: Ten-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the ADEPT Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Mancino, Fabio
    Finsterwald, Michael A.
    Jones, Christopher W.
    Prosser, Gareth H.
    Yates, Piers J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (03)
  • [43] Survivorship and risk factors for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing
    Ponniah, H. Subbiah
    Logishetty, K.
    Edwards, T. C.
    Singer, G. C.
    [J]. BONE & JOINT OPEN, 2023, 4 (11): : 853 - 858
  • [44] Dislocation of large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty
    Miettinen, Simo S. A.
    Makinen, Tatu J.
    Laaksonen, Inari
    Makela, Keijo
    Huhtala, Heini
    Kettunen, Jukka S.
    Remes, Ville
    [J]. HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 29 (03) : 253 - 261
  • [45] Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Same Patient: A Case Series Comparison
    Morrison, Todd A.
    Macaulay, William
    Geller, Jeffrey A.
    [J]. OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, 2009, 19 (03) : 182 - 187
  • [46] "Asymptomatic" Pseudotumors After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
    Kwon, Young-Min
    Ostlere, Simon J.
    McLardy-Smith, Peter
    Athanasou, Nicholas A.
    Gill, Harinderjit S.
    Murray, David W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (04): : 511 - 518
  • [47] MICRO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF METAL-ON-METAL HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY
    Hernandez Vaquero, D.
    Rodriguez-de-la-Flor Garcia, M.
    Martinez Nistal, A.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2014, 101 : 6 - 6
  • [48] The Utility of Metal Ion Trends in Predicting Revision in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Carlson, Bayard C.
    Bryan, Andrew J.
    Carrillo-Villamizar, Nazly T.
    Sierra, Rafael J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2017, 32 (09): : S214 - S219
  • [49] Revision of Failed Hip Resurfacing and Large Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual-Mobility Components
    Snir, Nimrod
    Park, Brian K.
    Garofolo, Garret
    Marwin, Scott E.
    [J]. ORTHOPEDICS, 2015, 38 (06) : 369 - 374
  • [50] Is Metal-On-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty Associated With Neurotoxicity?
    Bala, Abiram
    Penrose, Colin T.
    Seyler, Thorsten M.
    Randell, Timmothy R.
    Wellman, Samuel S.
    Bolognesi, Michael P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2016, 31 (09): : S233 - +