Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data.

School of Medicine and Health, Durham University, Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BH, UK.
The Bone & Joint Journal (Impact Factor: 2.8). 06/2012; 94(6):746-54. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.29239
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However, the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups, but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in the analyses. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates. A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery. In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007), but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p < 0.001, Conserve: HR = 2.03, p < 0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001, Durom: HR = 1.67, p < 0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p < 0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48, p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p < 0.001). Once these influences had been removed, in 4873 male patients < 60 years old undergoing resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision was 1.59%. In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year implant survival when the BHR was used.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the usefulness of the metal artifact reduction technique "WARP" in the assessment of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings at 1.5 and 3T in the context of image quality and imaging speed. Nineteen patients (25 hip resurfacings) were randomized for 1.5 and 3T MRI, both including T1 and T2 turbo spin-echo as well as turbo inversion recovery magnitude sequences with and without view angle tilting and high bandwidth. Additional 3T sequences were acquired with a reduced number of averages and using the parallel acquisition technique for accelerating imaging speed. Artifact size (diameter, area), image quality (5-point scale) and delineation of anatomical structures were compared among the techniques, sequences and field strengths using the Wilcoxon sign-rank and paired t-test with Bonferroni correction. At both field strengths, WARP showed significant superiority over standard sequences regarding image quality, artifact size and delineation of anatomical structures. At 3T, artifacts were larger compared to 1.5T without affecting diagnostic quality, and scanning time could be reduced by up to 64 % without quality degradation. WARP proved useful in imaging metal-on-metal hip resurfacings at 1.5T as well as 3T with better image quality surrounding the implants. At 3T imaging could be considerably accelerated without losing diagnostic quality.
    Skeletal Radiology 03/2015; 44(7). DOI:10.1007/s00256-015-2128-2
  • Source
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 01/2015; 19(10):1-668. DOI:10.3310/hta19100
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender. This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71-11.98]; p < 0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2-7.5], p = 0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21-4.58], p < 0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25-2.78], p < 0.001) after primary MoM HRA. A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications). Level III, therapeutic study.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 03/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11999-015-4227-8