Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

The Revision Burden of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty in Cornwall

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA)



Abstract

Background:

Higher than expected revision rates have been observed in large bearing metal-on-metal total hip replacements. We have introduced a metal on metal hip screening clinic at our unit and report the results.

Methods:

All patients who had a metal-on-metal total hip replacement implanted at our unit were recalled to clinic. Screening consisted of clinical examination, Oxford hip score, radiographs, MARS MRI and serum cobalt/chromium ion levels. MRI scans were graded (Norwich Classification) by a single consultant radiologist who was blinded to the history, examination, and metal levels. Patients were sub-classified into 6 groups, which determined further follow up and were either entered into a regular screening programme or referred to a revision arthroplasty surgeon for a decision on whether revision was required

Results:

A total of 278 patients were identified. Four patients had moved away, 2 refused follow-up and 1 patient had died. This left 271 patients in our cohort, having 299 metal-on-metal hip replacements with a M:F ratio of 1.5:1 and a mean age of 61.9 years (29–87).

59 (21.8%) patients complained of a recent deterioration in symptoms. Sixty seven (24.7%) patients had an abnormal xray appearance of their hip replacement (inclination >50 degrees, loosening, or migration of prosthesis).

Of the 232 hips which underwent MARS MRI, 118 (50.9%) were group A (normal appearance), 66 (28.4%) C1 (mild MOM disease), 31 (13.4%) C2 (moderate MOM disease), and 17 (7.3%) C3 (severe MOM disease). One hundred and seventeen (38.9%) had a substantial fluid collection around the hip.

Serum cobalt/chromium metal ions were raised in 135 patients (49.5%), 46 of which had one (8.8%) or both (8%) above 7 ppb (chromium >134 nmol/L, cobalt > 119 nmol/L).

One hundred and forty nine patients (55%) remained under review in the MOM clinic and 122 (45%, 148 hip replacements) were referred to a revision surgeon for specialist opinion. Of these 21 hips (14.2%) have been revised and a further 14 hips (9.5%) are awaiting revision.

In total 64 hips (21.3% of all large head metal on metal hips implanted in our unit) have been revised with a further 22 (7.3%) listed for revision. Of these, 13 were histologically proven to be an ALVAL reaction, 19 had the classic clinical findings of ALVAL (but not histologically confirmed), and 1 was a non-specific reaction to metal wear. 53 patients (19.4%, 56 hips) were completely asymptomatic but had evidence of ALVAL soft tissue reaction on MRI and/or rising metal ion levels – 9 of these hips have already been revised for ALVAL and 6 more listed for revision.

Conclusions

Our screening programme has identified 53 (19.6%) asymptomatic patients who have evidence of a suspicious reaction to their metal-on-metal hip replacements. 16 (3%) of these have gone on to revision. We would recommend all patients with a metal-on-metal total hip replacement in situ are fully screened for ARMD regardless of symptoms and metal ion levels.


*Email: