Reply to Letter to the Editor: The Withdrawn ASR™ THA and Hip Resurfacing Systems: How Have Our Patients Fared Over 1 to 6 Years?
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3269, Durham, NC, 27710, USA, . Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
(Impact Factor: 2.77).
08/2012; 471(2). DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2547-5
BACKGROUND: The Articular Surface Replacement™ (ASR™) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty system (DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) reportedly has a higher than anticipated early failure rate leading to a voluntary recall. This prompted us to evaluate all ASR™ components implanted at our center. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In all ASR™ components, we reported (1) revision rate, (2) blood metal ion levels, and (3) intraoperative findings for revisions related to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all 172 patients (190 hips) who underwent THA (149 hips) or hip resurfacing (41 hips) with the ASR™ system. We determined failure rates. We obtained blood metal ion concentrations from 93 patients at last followup. We evaluated MRI studies and intraoperative histopathology. Minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 40 months; range, 12-74 months). RESULTS: At latest followup, we had revised 24 of 190 hips (13%): in 18 patients with THA and five patients with resurfacing. Mean time to revision was 45 months (range, 12-75 months). Mean blood concentrations were 13 μg/L (range, 0-150 μg/L) for cobalt and 6 μg/L (range, 0-87 μg/L) for chromium. Mean prerevision blood metal ion levels were higher in the revised group (cobalt: 48 μg/L; chromium: 18 μg/L) than in the nonrevised group (cobalt: 5 μg/L; chromium: 2 μg/L). ARMD was present in 14 of the 24 hips revised in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons must have a low threshold for concern for ARMD in patients with ASR™ systems. Blood metal ion levels and MRI can be used to evaluate patients with underperforming implants. Intraoperative histopathologic analysis and joint fluid cytology can help diagnose ARMD at the time of revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Available from: link.springer.com
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 10/2012; 471(1). DOI:10.1007/s11999-012-2672-1 · 2.77 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The articular surface replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing system, now withdrawn, has the highest all-cause revision rate (24.2 % at 7 years) compared with other resurfacing brands. We present our experience with the ASR articulation and the implant recall process.
We reviewed the medical records and examined all 55 patients (57 hips) who had THA by the senior author between March 2005 and November 2008. We recorded the Oxford Hip scores, metal ion levels, need for revision, the indication for revision, and the intra-operative findings. Radiographs were performed at the time of recall to detect component failure.
Survival at 5 years with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 85.1 % for all patients. At the time of recall, 10 (17.5 %) of fifty-seven THAs were already revised. Four (40 %) of the ten revisions were performed within 1 month of the operation due to a periprosthetic fracture. Three other revisions were due to avascular necrosis at a mean time of 3.6 years. One patient was revised due to infection. The two remaining revisions were due to ongoing groin pain, in one of whom the cup was found to be loose.
Our data indicate an overall high revision rate, comparable with recently published studies. Even though most of our revisions were attributed to causes that are not specific to the metal-on-metal articulation, we do expect to find more cases of failures in the future. Therefore, continued close clinical surveillance and laboratory monitoring of these patients is warranted.
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 07/2013; 24(6). DOI:10.1007/s00590-013-1272-4 · 0.18 Impact Factor
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 09/2013; 95(18):1719-25. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.M.00764 · 5.28 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.