We report 17 patients (20 hips) in whom metal-on-metal resurfacing had been performed and who presented with various symptoms and a soft-tissue mass which we termed a pseudotumour. Each patient underwent plain radiography and in some, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were also performed. In addition, histological examination of available samples was undertaken. All the patients were women and their presentation was variable. The most common symptom was discomfort in the region of the hip. Other symptoms included spontaneous dislocation, nerve palsy, a noticeable mass or a rash. The common histological features were extensive necrosis and lymphocytic infiltration. To date, 13 of the 20 hips have required revision to a conventional hip replacement. Two are awaiting revision. We estimate that approximately 1% of patients who have a metal-on-metal resurfacing develop a pseudotumour within five years. The cause is unknown and is probably multifactorial. There may be a toxic reaction to an excess of particulate metal wear debris or a hypersensitivity reaction to a normal amount of metal debris. We are concerned that with time the incidence of these pseudotumours may increase. Further investigation is required to define their cause

Aims

This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection.

We report the outcome of total hip replacement in 29 failed metal-on-metal resurfacing hip replacements in which the primary surgery was performed between August 1995 and February 2005. The mean length of follow-up was five years (1.7 to 11.7). Of the 29 hip resurfacings, 19 acetabular components and all the femoral components were revised (28 uncemented stems and one cemented stem). There were no deaths and none of the patients was lost to follow-up. None of the hips underwent any further revision. The results of the revision resurfacing group were compared with those of a control group of age-matched patients. In the latter group there were 236 primary total hip replacements and 523 resurfacings performed during the same period by the same surgeons.

The outcome of the revision resurfacing group was comparable with that of the stemmed primary hip replacement group but was less good than that of the primary hip resurfacing group. Long-term follow-up is advocated to monitor the outcome of these cases.

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

We sought to establish the incidence of joint failure secondary to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in a large, three surgeon, multicentre study involving 4226 hips with a follow-up of 10 to 142 months. Three implants were studied: the Articular Surface Replacement; the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing; and the Conserve Plus. Retrieved implants underwent analysis using a co-ordinate measuring machine to determine volumetric wear. There were 58 failures associated with ARMD. The median chromium and cobalt concentrations in the failed group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a failure rate in the patients with Articular Surface Replacement of 9.8% at five years, compared with < 1% at five years for the Conserve Plus and 1.5% at ten years for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Two ARMD patients had relatively low wear of the retrieved components. Increased wear from the metal-on-metal bearing surface was associated with an increased rate of failure secondary to ARMD. However, the extent of tissue destruction at revision surgery did not appear to be dose-related to the volumetric wear.

Metal-on-metal total hip replacement has been targeted at younger patients with anticipated long-term survival, but the effect of the production of metal ions is a concern because of their possible toxicity to cells. We have reviewed the results of the use of the Ultima hybrid metal-on-metal total hip replacement, with a cemented polished tapered femoral component with a 28 mm diameter and a cobalt-chrome (CoCr) modular head, articulating with a 28 mm CoCr acetabular bearing surface secured in a titanium alloy uncemented shell.

Between 1997 and 2004, 545 patients with 652 affected hips underwent replacement using this system. Up to 31 January 2008, 90 (13.8%) hips in 82 patients had been revised. Pain was the sole reason for revision in 44 hips (48.9%) of which 35 had normal plain radiographs. Peri-prosthetic fractures occurred in 17 hips (18.9%) with early dislocation in three (3.3%) and late dislocation in 16 (17.8%). Infection was found in nine hips (10.0%).

At operation, a range of changes was noted including cavities containing cloudy fluid under pressure, necrotic soft tissues with avulsed tendons and denuded osteonecrotic upper femora. Corrosion was frequently observed on the retrieved cemented part of the femoral component. Typically, the peri-operative findings confirmed those found on pre-operative metal artefact reduction sequence MRI and histological examination showed severe necrosis.

Metal artefact reduction sequence MRI proved to be useful when investigating these patients with pain in the absence of adverse plain radiological features.

Early failure associated with adverse reactions to metal debris is an emerging problem after hip resurfacing but the exact mechanism is unclear. We analysed our entire series of 660 metal-on-metal resurfacings (Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR)) and large-bearing ASR total hip replacements, to establish associations with metal debris-related failures. Clinical and radiological outcomes, metal ion levels, explant studies and lymphocyte transformation tests were performed. A total of 17 patients (3.4%) were identified (all ASR bearings) with adverse reactions to metal debris, for which revision was required. This group had significantly smaller components, significantly higher acetabular component anteversion, and significantly higher whole concentrations of blood and joint chromium and cobalt ions than asymptomatic patients did (all p < 0.001). Post-revision lymphocyte transformation tests on this group showed no reactivity to chromium or cobalt ions. Explants from these revisions had greater surface wear than retrievals for uncomplicated fractures. The absence of adverse reactions to metal debris in patients with well-positioned implants usually implies high component wear.

Surgeons must consider implant design, expected component size and acetabular component positioning in order to reduce early failures when performing large-bearing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and replacement.