Management Guidelines for Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Strategy on Followup

被引:0
作者
Naoki Nakano
Andrea Volpin
Jonathan Bartlett
Vikas Khanduja
机构
[1] Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust,Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Elective Clinical Trials Research Lead Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Addenbrooke ‘s Hospital
来源
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics | 2017年 / 51卷
关键词
Adverse reaction to metal debris; follow up; guideline; hip replacement; hip resurfacing; metal-on-metal; patient management; Replacement; arthroplasty; hip; reoperation; prosthesis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Despite the initial promise of metal-on-metal (MoM) implants as the ideal bearing surface for hip replacements and resurfacings, high short term failure rates due to an adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of MoM implants used in the modern era. With over one million patients worldwide having undergone hip operations utilizing a MoM bearing surface, the long term outcomes for such patients remains unknown, and there is much debate as to the most effective management of these patients. Although several regulatory bodies have released guidelines on the management of patients with MoM hips, these recommendations remain open to interpretation, and the most effective management for these patients remains unclear. The aim of this review is to compare the current guidelines for managing patients with MoM hips and also to discuss established ARMD risk factors, evidence regarding the optimum management for patients with MoM hips, and the indications for revision surgery. Furthermore, although specialized laboratory tests and imaging can be used to facilitate clinical decision making, over-reliance on any single tool should be avoided in the decision making process, and surgeons should carefully consider all findings when determining the most appropriate course of action.
引用
收藏
页码:414 / 420
页数:6
相关论文
共 268 条
[1]  
McKee GK(1966)Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis J Bone Joint Surg Br 48 245-259
[2]  
Watson-Farrar J(2003)Metal-on-metal versus polyethylene in hip arthroplasty: A randomized clinical trial Clin Orthop Relat Res 406 282-296
[3]  
MacDonald SJ(2009)Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: The effect of cup position and component size on range of motion to impingement J Arthroplasty 24 144-151
[4]  
McCalden RW(2011)Narrowed indications improve outcomes for hip resurfacing arthroplasty Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 69 S27-S29
[5]  
Chess DG(2012)2011 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: When to release patients to high-impact activities after hip resurfacing Clin Orthop Relat Res 470 299-306
[6]  
Bourne RB(2011)High failure rates with a large-diameter hybrid metal-on-metal total hip replacement: Clinical, radiological and retrieval analysis J Bone Joint Surg Br 93 608-615
[7]  
Rorabeck CH(2011)Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br 93 1011-1016
[8]  
Cleland D(2010)Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: A consequence of excess wear J Bone Joint Surg Br 92 38-46
[9]  
Williams D(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 1759-1766
[10]  
Royle M(2010)Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: What do they tell us? What do they not tell us? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468 351-357