Predictors of time to revision and clinical outcomes following revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris

被引:26
|
作者
Matharu, G. S. [1 ]
Pynsent, P. B. [1 ]
Sumathi, V. P. [1 ]
Mittal, S. [1 ]
Buckley, C. D. [1 ]
Dunlop, D. J. [1 ]
Revell, P. A. [1 ]
Revell, M. P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Royal Orthopaed Hosp, Birmingham B31 2AP, W Midlands, England
来源
BONE & JOINT JOURNAL | 2014年 / 96B卷 / 12期
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
OXFORD HIP; RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; INFLAMMATORY PSEUDOTUMOR; COMPONENT; FAILURE; ORIENTATION; BEARINGS; WEAR; FEATURES; NECK;
D O I
10.1302/0301-620X.96B12.33473
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
We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine clinical outcomes following the revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify predictors of time to revision and outcomes following revision. Between 1998 and 2012 a total of 64 MoM hips (mean age at revision of 57.8 years; 46 (72%) female; 46 (72%) hip resurfacings and 18 (28%) total hip replacements) were revised for ARMD at one specialist centre. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.0 to 14.6) from revision for ARMD there were 13 hips (20.3%) with post-operative complications and eight (12.5%) requiring re-revision. The Kaplan-Meier five-year survival rate for ARMD revision was 87.9% (95% confidence interval 78.9 to 98.0; 19 hips at risk). Excluding re-revisions, the median absolute Oxford hip score (OHS) following ARMD revision using the percentage method (0% best outcome and 100% worst outcome) was 18.8% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.8% to 48.3%), which is equivalent to 39/48 (IQR 24.8/48 to 44.3/48) when using the modified OHS. Histopathological response did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.334) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.879). Similarly, the presence or absence of a contralateral MoM hip bearing did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.066) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.178). Patients revised to MoM bearings had higher rates of re-revision (five of 16 MoM hips rerevised; p = 0.046), but those not requiring re-revision had good functional results (median absolute OHS 14.6% or 41.0/48). Short-term morbidity following revision for ARMD was comparable with previous reports. Caution should be exercised when choosing bearing surfaces for ARMD revisions.
引用
收藏
页码:1600 / 1609
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes
    Matharu, Gulraj S.
    Pynsent, Paul B.
    Dunlop, David J.
    [J]. HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 24 (04) : 311 - 320
  • [2] Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris A clinical update
    Matharu, Gulraj S.
    Eskelinen, Antti
    Judge, Andrew
    Pandit, Hemant G.
    Murray, David W.
    [J]. ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2018, 89 (03) : 278 - 288
  • [3] Large-Diameter Modular Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty Incidence of Revision for Adverse Reaction to Metallic Debris
    Barrett, William P.
    Kindsfater, Kirk A.
    Lesko, James P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2012, 27 (06): : 976 - 983
  • [4] Outcomes After Revision of Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
    Gross, Thomas P.
    Liu, Fei
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2014, 29 (09): : 219 - 223
  • [5] Outcome of revision arthroplasty for failed metal-on-metal total hip replacements; is there a relation with metal ions?
    Iqbal, Hafiz J.
    Al-Azzani, Waheeb A. K.
    Jackson-Taylor, Esther
    Clatworthy, Elizabeth
    John, Alun
    [J]. HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 27 (03) : 235 - 240
  • [6] Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients
    Matharu, G. S.
    Judge, A.
    Murray, D. W.
    Pandit, H. G.
    [J]. BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2017, 6 (07): : 405 - 413
  • [7] Declining Revision Burden of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties
    Lainiala, Olli S.
    Reito, Aleksi P.
    Nieminen, Jyrki J.
    Eskelinen, Antti P.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (09): : 2058 - +
  • [8] Revision rates for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty - a systematic review
    Sorensen, Sofie-Amalie L. Ras
    Jorgensen, Henrik L.
    Sporing, Sune L.
    Lauritzen, Jes B.
    [J]. HIP INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 26 (06) : 515 - 521
  • [9] Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements with dual-mobility bearings and acetabular component retention
    Fishley, W.
    Nandra, R.
    Carluke, I.
    Partington, P. F.
    Reed, M. R.
    Kramer, D. J.
    Wilson, M. J.
    Hubble, M. J. W.
    Howell, J. R.
    Whitehouse, S. L.
    Petheram, T. G.
    Kassam, A. -A M.
    [J]. BONE & JOINT OPEN, 2024, 5 (06):
  • [10] Immune response in adverse reactions to metal debris following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty
    Masahiro Hasegawa
    Takahiro Iino
    Akihiro Sudo
    [J]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 17