Metal on metal hip resurfacing (MMHR) is a popular procedure for the treatment of osteoarthritis in young patients. Several centres have observed masses, arising from around these devices, we call these inflammatory pseudotumours. They are locally invasive and may cause massive soft tissue destruction. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for pseudotumours that are serious enough to require revision surgery. In out unit, 1,419 MMHRs were performed between June 1999 and November 2008. All revisions were identified, including all cases revised for pseudotumour. Pseudotumour diagnosis was made by histological examination of samples from revision. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, Cox regression analysis was used to estimate the independent effects of different factors. The revision rate for pseudotumour increased with time and was 4% (95% CI: 2.2% to 5.8%) at eight years. Female gender was a strong risk factor: at eight years the revision rate for pseudotumours in men was 0.5% (95% CI 0% to 1.1%), in women over 40 it was 6% (95% CI 2.3% to 10.1%) and in women under 40 it was 25% (95% CI 7.3% to 42.9%) (p<
0.001). Other factors associated with an increase in revision rate were, small components (p=0.003) and dysplasia (p=0.019), whereas implant type was not (p=0.156). We recommend that resurfacings are undertaken with caution in women, especially those younger than 40 years of age, but they remain a good option in men. Further work is required to understand the patho-aetiology of pseudotumours so that this severe complication can be avoided.
We report the clinical, radiographic and histologic features of these cases.
There were no infections in this series. Three subjects required revision surgery.
This study suggests that resurfacing arthoplasty can also induce a local hypersensitivity reaction in response to metal wear debris. It therefore raises new concerns regarding the long-term safety of this procedure.
Joint Position Sense (JPS) &
sway were used as measures of proprioception performance. Both groups were assessed pre- and 6 months post-op. JPS was measured using an isokinetic dynamometer (KinCom, Chatanooga Ltd) as the error in actively and passively reproducing fi ve randomly ordered knee fl exion angles (30°, 40°, 50°, 60° and 70°). Sway (area, path and velocity) was measured during single leg stance using a Balance Performance Monitor (SMS Medical) for 30-second interval. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Pre-operatively, no differences in JPS or sway were found between limbs in either group. No differences existed between the two groups. Post-operatively, both groups had signifi cant improvement of JPS in the operated limb only (Mean ± standard deviation for UKA 4.64±1.44° and for TKA 5.18±1.35°). No changes in JPS were seen in the control side. Group 2 patients showed signifi cant improvement in both sway area and path (p<
.0001) for both limbs post-operatively. No signifi cant post-operative changes in sway occurred in either limb of Group 1 patients. The OKS improved post-operatively in both groups, rising from 21.4 to 35.5 for Group 1 patients and from 23.9 to 38 for Group 2 patients.
Results at one year (TMK first): AKSS(Knee) 91.6 / 84.1 (p=0.003), OKS 39.8 / 37.6 (p=0.006), ROM 104 / 104 (p=0.364), Pain (AKSS) 47.3 / 41.7 (p=0.01), Pain (OKS) 3.5 / 2.9 (p=0.006).