header advert
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

PLASMA AND ERYTHROCYTE ION LEVELS AS SURROGATE MEASURES OF EXPOSURE RISK IN METAL-METAL ARTHROPLASTY



Abstract

Introduction: Metal ion release from metal-metal (MM) joints continues to cause concern. Blood metal levels are a measure of systemic exposure. The usefulness of plasma and erythrocyte levels rests on whether individual variability in these blood fractions is within acceptable limits.

Methods: 461 concurrent specimens of whole blood (WB), plasma and erythrocytes from a heterogeneous group of patients with large and small diameter MM hip arthroplasties were analysed using high resolution mass-spectrometry. 41 specimens were excluded because the level was below the limit of detection. Agreement was assessed with scatter plots, mean differences and Bland and Altman limits of agreement. A p value of d0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Mean differences between WB and its fractions were statistically highly significant (p< 0.001). The scatter showed that the variability in plasma chromium was worse at lower levels and that in erythrocytes was worse at higher levels. Bland analyses showed the limits of agreement extended from −106% to 74% for cobalt and −108 to 158% for chromium and −58% to 46% for cobalt and −63% to 52% for chromium in erythrocytes and plasma respectively. Erythrocyte chromium distribution in the erythrocytes shows no increase with increasing chromium levels in WB.

Discussion: and Conclusion: The variability with plasma and erythrocytes compared to WB metal ion levels rejects the hypothesis that these can be used as surrogate measures of systemic exposure. There appears to be a cellular ceiling beyond which chromium entry into the cell is resisted. This makes erythrocyte levels particularly unsuitable as markers of systemic chromium exposure.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel: +41 44 448 44 00; Email: office@efort.org

Author: Joseph Daniel, United Kingdom

E-mail: mr.jdaniel@yahoo.co.uk