Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
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

General Orthopaedics

INCREASED ASEPTIC LOOSENING IN NON-LARGE-HEAD METAL-ON-METAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) and Canadian Orthopaedic Research Society (CORS) Annual Meeting, June 2016; PART 2.



Abstract

Non-large head Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements were seen as a solution to concerns about implant wear in younger patients. Mid-term loosening of once well-fixed hydroxyapatite (HA) coated femoral stems was recently observed in select MoM patients upon revision surgery. Accordingly, an implant retrieval study was undertaken to examine the incidence of aseptic loosening of in HA-coated femoral stems with MoM, ceramic on ceramic (CoC) and metal on polyethylene (MoP) bearing couples.

A single-centre implant retrieval lab reviewed 44 hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium wedge taper stems of the same design retrieved over a period of 9 years. Ten were MoM articulations, 23 MoP and 11 CoC. Head sizes ranged from 28 to 40 with only four 40mm heads, all of which were MoM. Reason for revision, duration of implantation, femoral head size, patient age and body mass index was recorded for each retrieval. Goldberg corrosion scores were determined for the taper surfaces of each retrieval, with ‘0’ indicating no corrosion and ‘3’ indicating severe corrosion. Logistic regression analysis, Wilcoxan Rank Sum and Fischer's exact test were used for statistical analysis.

Aseptic loosening was the listed reason for revision in 18 of 44 cases. MoM bearing was associated with increased probability of aseptic loosening (Odds ratio 7.1 (95%CI 1.1–47.0) p=0.042). Severity of corrosion was also associated with aseptic loosening (Odds ratio 2.75 (95%CI 1.1–6.6) p=0.02). Head size and patient age had no correlation. Median time to revision of implants for aseptic loosening was 4.5 years (range: 4.2–7.0 years) for MoM versus 1.4 years (range: 0.3–3.0) for other bearing couples (p=0.004). Aseptic loosening was categorised as early (<=2 years) or mid-term (>2 years). No MoM hips were revised for aseptic loosening in the first 2 years while 8 of the 11 mid-term revisions had MoM articulations (p=0.004). Taper corrosion was more severe in mid-term aseptic loosing cases (p=0.049).

MoM HA-coated hip replacements appear to be associated with increased mid-term aseptic loosening compared to other bearing couples. Patients with MoM HA-coated hip replacements should be monitored regularly beyond the initial 1 to 2 years following surgery. Future analyses will examine the presence and progression of femoral radiolucency prior to revision surgery to determine an approximate timeline of stem loosening in this patient cohort. This research highlights the importance of implant retrieval programs to assess post-revision implant characteristics for early identification of possible device issues.


Email: