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
  • [31] Total hip replacements with metal-on-metal bearings
    Milosev, Ingrid
    Kovac, Simon
    Topolovec, Matevz
    Pisot, Venceslav
    Trebse, Rihard
    ZDRAVNISKI VESTNIK-SLOVENIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 78 : 34 - 40
  • [32] Pseudotumor in the Setting of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty
    Sagoo, Navraj S.
    Sharma, Ruhi
    Johnson, Connor S.
    Stephenson, Kelly
    Aya, Kessiena L.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2020, 12 (05)
  • [33] Metal-on-metal articulation in total hip arthroplasty: update
    Srinivasan, Anand
    Levine, Brett R.
    Jacobs, Joshua J.
    CURRENT ORTHOPAEDIC PRACTICE, 2011, 22 (03): : 231 - 235
  • [34] Revision of Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: Midterm Outcomes of 203 Consecutive Cases
    Crawford, David A.
    Adams, Joanne B.
    Morris, Michael J.
    Berend, Keith R.
    Lombardi, Adolph V., Jr.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (08) : 1755 - 1760
  • [35] Imaging of Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing
    Hayter, Catherine L.
    Potter, Hollis G.
    Su, Edwin P.
    ORTHOPEDIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2011, 42 (02) : 195 - +
  • [36] Serum metal ion levels after second-generation metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty
    Imanishi, Takao
    Hasegawa, Masahiro
    Sudo, Akihiro
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2010, 130 (12) : 1447 - 1450
  • [37] Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review
    Haughom, Bryan D.
    Erickson, Brandon J.
    Hellman, Michael D.
    Jacobs, Joshua J.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2015, 473 (08) : 2521 - 2529
  • [38] Radiographic Evaluation of Midterm Failure Rates Following Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing
    Rylander, Lucas S.
    Milbrandt, Joseph C.
    Wallace, Adam B.
    Allan, D. Gordon
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2011, 26 (06) : 897 - 902
  • [39] Modern Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing
    McGrory, Brian
    Barrack, Robert
    Lachiewicz, Paul F.
    Schmalzried, Thomas P.
    Yates, Adolph J., Jr.
    Watters, William C., III
    Turkelson, Charles M.
    Wies, Janet L.
    St Andre, Justin
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2010, 18 (05) : 306 - 314
  • [40] The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing
    Gulraj S. Matharu
    Hemant G. Pandit
    David W. Murray
    Ronan B. C. Treacy
    International Orthopaedics, 2015, 39 : 2031 - 2036