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
  • [21] Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing
    Ebied, A
    Journeaux, S
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDICS, 2002, 16 (06): : 420 - 425
  • [22] Modes of Failure in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Fehring, Keith A.
    Fehring, Thomas K.
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2015, 46 (02) : 185 - +
  • [23] Declining Revision Burden of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties
    Lainiala, Olli S.
    Reito, Aleksi P.
    Nieminen, Jyrki J.
    Eskelinen, Antti P.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (09) : 2058 - +
  • [24] The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing
    Matharu, Gulraj S.
    Pandit, Hemant G.
    Murray, David W.
    Treacy, Ronan B. C.
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2015, 39 (10) : 2031 - 2036
  • [25] A Systematic Review of Modern Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Resurfacing vs Standard Total Hip Arthroplasty in Active Young Patients
    Jiang, Yong
    Zhang, Kaifang
    Die, Jun
    Shi, Zhibing
    Zhao, Haien
    Wang, Kunzheng
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (03) : 419 - 426
  • [26] Lymphocyte Proliferation Responses in Patients with Pseudotumors following Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
    Kwon, Young-Min
    Thomas, Peter
    Summer, Burkhard
    Pandit, Hemant
    Taylor, Adrian
    Beard, David
    Murray, David W.
    Gill, Harinderjit S.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 2010, 28 (04) : 444 - 450
  • [27] Survivorship of a Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Implant With Modular Titanium Adapter
    Semaan, Derek J.
    Rutledge-Jukes, Heath
    Berend, Keith R.
    Lombardi, Adolph V., Jr.
    Adams, Joanne B.
    Crawford, David A.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2022, 37 (07) : S560 - S565
  • [28] Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup
    Naoki Nakano
    Andrea Volpin
    Jonathan Bartlett
    Vikas Khanduja
    Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2017, 51 : 414 - 420
  • [29] Painful metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty
    Shahrdar, C
    Campbell, P
    Mirra, J
    Dorr, LD
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2006, 21 (02) : 289 - 293
  • [30] Femoral Revision in Hip Resurfacing Compared With Large-Bearing Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty
    Garrett, Simon J. W.
    Bolland, Ben J. R. F.
    Yates, Piers J.
    Gardner, Edward M. H.
    Latham, Jeremy M.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (08) : 1214 - 1218