Abstract
Background
Reasons for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) have evolved with improving surgical experience and techniques. Early revisions were often due to fracture of the femoral neck while later revisions are associated with loosening and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) to wear debris. In some studies, revisions of MoMHRA with ALTR have been complicated by an increased risk of rerevision and poor outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the causes of failure and to identify factors that improve outcome following revision of a failed HRA.
Methods
From 2001 to May 2015, 180 consecutive HRA revisions were performed in 172 patients. Ninety-nine primary surgeries were done at a HRA specialist centre (99/4211, revision rate: 2.4%), 81 elsewhere. Eight different HRA designs were revised mainly in females (60%). Components’ orientation was measured from radiographs using EBRA. Ion levels were used as a diagnostic tool since 2006 (n=153). Harris-Hip-Score (HHS) was obtained prerevision and at latest follow-up. The initial experience of the first 42 cases (Initial Group) was compared to cases 43–180 (Later Group). Patients of the Later group were noted to have less soft tissue damage, had significantly bigger THA heads implanted at surgery, were educated of the increased complication risk and some wore an abduction brace for 6 weeks.
Results
All patients presented with some pain/discomfort. Mean time to revision was 38 months (0–160). Eight HRAs were revised for fracture and 8 for infection. The most common reason for revision was component malpositioning (acetabular 48%, excessive abduction and/or anteversion; femoral 10%) usually associated with high metal ions (62%). The most common intra-operative finding was ALTR (48%) followed by metallosis (36%) and impingement (29%). Metal sensitivity was suspected in 8 patients (6F/2M). There were gender-specific differences in component sizes and causes of failure, with a higher incidence of component malpositioning, osteolysis and elevated metal ions in women. Time to revision in patients with high metal ion levels was shorter with the ASR (21 months, SD:10) in comparison to the BHR (38 months, SD: 25) (p=0.05). For the whole cohort, HHS significantly improved post revision (93, 42–100) (p<0.001). Fourteen complications (9 dislocations; 5 infections) and 9 re-revisions occurred. Outcome {HHSpost-op (p=0.04), complication and re-revision rates (p=0.005)} was significantly better in the Later Group compared to the Initial group. The incidence of complications/re-revisions significantly reduced since the introduction of metal ions (p=0.004). The presence of ALTR did not significantly affect outcome (p=0.65). However, patients with ALTR in the Later group (n=51) had significant reduced complication(p=0.005) and re-revision(p=0.016) rates in comparison to those in the Initial Group.
Conclusion
Component malpositioning is the most common cause of HRA failure. Metal ion measurements are an excellent tool to detect wear at an early stage. The revision analysis highlights the importance of surgical experience, indications and prosthesis design. Use of ion levels, big THA-heads and patient education/compliance were identified as factors improving outcome following HRA revision. Patients with soft tissue reactions can have good outcome if operated prior to extensive soft tissue destruction.
