Metal-on-metal bearings have become popular in the last ten years because of a low wear rate combined with the ability to use large head sizes for conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to facilitate resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Further advantages of metal-metal bearings include the fact that they are not at risk for fracture, and they can be made as modular or non-modular acetabular implants. It was recognized early that metal-on-metal implants had the potential to increase serum ion levels, and this was demonstrated in a number of studies. The significance of elevated ion levels, however, for most patients has been primarily a theoretical concern of toxicity, carcinogenesis or mutagenicity, and to date very few, if any, systemic problems related to systemic metal ions have been documented with certainty. Nevertheless, most surgeons have avoided use of the implants in patients who are likely to become pregnant, patients with renal disease, or patients with major systemic illnesses which have a high likelihood of leading to renal disease. Furthermore, most have avoided using them in patients with known dermal metal allergies, even though the connection between dermal metal allergies and metal bearings has not been established. Unexpectedly, an extremely important concern has emerged with metal bearings: the finding of local inflammatory reactions related to metal bearings. These inflammatory reactions can take several forms including pain with a milky effusion, local tissue necrosis, or large fluid collections or pseudotumors. The histology of these different reactions appears to be predominantly lymphocytic in nature and a term for at least some of these reactions has been coined “AVALS”. Whether these local reactions are primarily immunologic in nature or primarily related to dose of local metal ions or debris remains uncertain. While there is much still to be learned, it appears that certain patient populations may be at increased risk for metal reactions, possibly related to implant size (women and smaller patients). It also seems verticallyoriented implants, which create edge loading, increase wear and increase risk of local metal reactions. Perhaps the most important question is the incidence of local metal reactions, which remains to be defined. To date the problems in most series have been infrequent, less than 1 or 2 percent. However, in a few selected series the incidence has been higher, and when screening has been done for asymptomatic patients with fluid or masses around the joint, the rate has been higher in at least one reported series. Surgeons may interpret the importance of local metal reactions differently, but certainly ultimately incidence of this problem will have a very major effect on the future of these bearings

Serum and blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) ion levels are used to monitor patients at risk for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, these levels often do not correlate with the degree of local soft-tissue reaction and damage observed at the time of revision. The purpose of this study was to analyze synovial fluid metal ion concentrations in patients with a failed THA in the setting of an ARMD and determine if these levels can be more predictive of soft-tissue destruction than serum or whole blood levels. Synovial, blood and serum samples were prospectively collected from patients undergoing revision THA with ARMD (n=29) and those undergoing aseptic revision without ARMD (n=29). There was no difference in mean age (P=0.50), BMI (P=0.18), sex distribution (P=0.18), serum creatinine (P=0.74), or time to revision THA (P=0.13) between the cohorts. In the AMRD cohort, the components included MoM THA (n=18), hip resurfacing (n=5), dual-modular taper THA (n=4) and MoM and dual-modular taper THA (n=2). At the time of revision THA, 26 (90%) patients in the metal reaction cohort had gross evidence of metallosis in the soft-tissues, the remaining 3 (10%) had evidence of corrosion of the dual taper neck or MoM bearing. In the non ARMD cohort the bearing surfaces included metal-on-polyethylene (n=19) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (n=10). The indications for revision included isolated acetabular loosening (n=11), isolated femoral component loosening (n=11), polyethylene wear (n=5), recurrent dislocation (n=1) and combined femoral and acetabular component loosening (n=1). None had a clinical diagnosis or gross evidence of taper corrosion. Pre-revision, 21 (72%) patients in the metal reaction group had periarticular fluid collections or a mass on MRI. Mean cyst size was 202.9±71.6 cm3 and masses were grouped into Type I (cyst wall <3 mm, n=10), Type II (cyst wall ≥3 mm, n=8) and Type III (mainly solid, n=3). At the time of revision THA, the mean Co levels were elevated in patients with ARMD compared to those without in synovial fluid (1,833 ppb vs. 12.3 ppb, P=0.008), whole blood (22.6 ppb vs 0.5 ppb, P=0.005)) and serum (19.6 vs. 0.6, P=0.001). Likewise, mean Cr levels were significantly elevated in patients with an ARMD compared to those undergoing revision without in synovial fluid (3,128 ppb vs. 10.3 ppb, P=0.01), whole blood (8.9 ppb vs. 0.5 ppb, P=0.009) and serum (14.1 ppb vs. 0.5 ppb, P=0.005). The synovial fluid Co levels were the most accurate test for detecting pseudotumor (AUC 0.951) and adverse local tissue reaction (AUC 0.826). At a synovial fluid Cr level of 110 ppb, the synovial fluid metal ion analysis was 94% sensitive and 86% specific for pseudotumor formation. In this prospective study, synovial fluid analysis of metal ion levels was more accurate in predicting the presence and extent of pseudo-tumor or ALTR compared to blood or serum analysis. The addition of synovial aspiration with metal ion analysis may provide another helpful data point when risk stratifying these patients for need for revision THA

The evolution of orthopedic implants has witnessed a great evolution and allowed insights into the various metals and alloys compatible with the human body. However, some recent reports have raised concerns regarding hypersensitivity to several metals used in orthopedic implants. These cases are mostly documented in the field of arthroplasty. Metal ion release following hip or knee arthroplasty is a known phenomenon and associated immune reactions to these metal ions have been implicated in the causation of these hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions frequently lead to poor outcome following these implant surgeries. We here present two rare cases of metal induced hypersensitivity reactions following orthopedic surgeries. We have also reviewed the literature in this context to look into the various causes of metal reactions, types of implant involved in hypersensitivity, methods of testing and management options in these cases

Introduction. Numerous studies have reported on clinically significant volumes of material loss and corrosion at the head-stem junction of metal-on-metal (MOM) hips; less is understood about metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) hips. We compared the effect of bearing type (MOM vs MOP) on taper material loss for a hip system of a single design (DePuy Pinnacle). Methods. We recruited retrieved MOM (n=30) and MOP (n=22) bearing hips that were consecutively received at our centre. We prospectively collected associated clinical and imaging data. We measured the severity of corrosion and volumes of material loss at each head taper surface and used multivariate statistical analysis to investigate differences between the two bearing types. Results. The median rate of material loss for the MOM and MOP groups was 0.81 mm. 3. /year (0.01–3.45) and 0.03 mm. 3. /year (0–1.07) respectively (p<0.001). 29 out of 30 MOM hips were revised for adverse metal reactions, compared with 1 out of 22 MOP hips. Discussion. MOP hips lost significantly less material from their taper junctions than MOM hips. We suggest that the metal-metal interaction at the bearing surface of MOM hips enhances the corrosive environment at the head-stem junction. Conclusion. Our results can reassure patients with MOP Pinnacle hips that they are unlikely to experience clinically significant problems related to material loss from the taper junction

Aims

Metal particles detached from metal-on-metal hip prostheses (MoM-THA) have been shown to cause inflammation and destruction of tissues. To further explore this, we investigated the histopathology (aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL) score) and metal concentrations of the periprosthetic tissues obtained from patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty. We also aimed to investigate whether accumulated metal debris was associated with ALVAL-type reactions in the synovium.

Aims

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) has seen decreased usage due to safety and longevity concerns. Joint registries have highlighted the risks in females, smaller hips, and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to identify if reported risk factors are linked to revision in a long-term follow-up of MoM-HR performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Hip simulator studies have shown reduced hip offset can cause microseparation and increased wear in hard-on-hard hip bearings. However this has not been analysed yet in vivo. We studied the effect of reduced hip offset on serum metal ion levels in patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. From all patients who underwent unilateral MoM bearing hip arthroplasty between 2005 and 2009, 63 patients had complete clinical evaluation, measurement of serum chromium and cobalt ion levels as well as biomechanical measurements on pre- and post operative radiographs (cup inclination, head inclination, change in hip offset and change in hip length.). Ten arthroplasties were revised due to adverse metal reaction and six patients awaiting revision. 55% of ASR hips showed higher metal ions (>7 ppb) whereas only 15% of non-ASR hips had higher ion levels. Patients with reduced postoperative hip offset by more than 5 mm had significantly higher mean metal ion levels compared to the the rest of the hips (31.8 ppb vs. 7.4 ppb, p=0.002). On subgroup analysis this effect was present in non-ASR hips (18.7 ppb vs. 4.7 ppb, p=0.025) but was not significant in ASR hips (29.6 ppb vs. 16.3 ppb, p=0.347). Our study demonstrated significantly higher serum metal ion levels in patients who lost more than 5 mm hip offset after arthroplasty. Reduced soft tissue tension leading to microseparation of the articulation and edge loading is a theoretical explanation for this effect. This may be relevant in other hard bearings such as ceramic-on-ceramic as well

BACKGROUND. The most common salvage of a failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is to remove both the femoral and acetabular resurfacing components and perform a total hip replacement. The other choices are to perform an acetabular or femoral only revision. A one or two piece acetabular component or a polyethylene bipolar femoral component that matches the retained metal resurfacing acetabular component is used. The considerations in favor of performing a one component resurfacing revision are maintaining the natural femoral head size, limiting the surgical effort for the patient and surgeon, and bone conservation. There are often favorable cost considerations with single component revision surgery. The reasons for femoral component revision are femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening and an adverse reaction to metal wear debris. Performing a femoral component only revision requires a well fixed and well oriented acetabular component. Acetabular revision is most often performed for an adverse reaction to metal wear debris or loosening. METHODS. 81 acetabular revisions and 46 femoral revisions were evaluated 4 to 14 years after surgery. 83% of patients had their initial surgery at outside institutions. The mean age was 46 and 65% of patients were women. A two piece titanium backed polyethylene component was used in 44 patients and a one or two piece metal component was used in 37. A dual mobility femoral prosthesis mated to a retained metal acetabular component was used for the femoral revisions and no conversions to a metal-on-metal total hip replacement were performed. We selected polyethylene acetabular components for patients with adverse reactions to metal wear debris if their femoral component was less than 48 mm or if there was no matching metal acetabular component available for their femoral component. We used dual mobility components for femoral loosening, femoral neck fractures and adverse reactions to metal wear debris in patients with well-fixed and well oriented metal acetabular components. Dual mobility components were also used if there are any concerns about the femoral component or in some older patients. We performed one component revisions rather than conversion to total hip replacement on 88% of patients presenting with failed resurfacing prostheses. RESULTS. There were no failures with polyethylene acetabular components. There were two failures due to ongoing adverse metal reactions in patients receiving metal revision acetabular components. There was one failure with a dual mobility prosthesis due to accelerated polyethylene wear from undetected edge loading on a retained worn metal acetabular component. There were two infections and one patient with continued pain. There were no dislocations. The average Harris Hip Score was 94. The UCLA activity score was 6 or greater for all but 4 patients. There were 6 revisions to total hip replacement. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 94%. 95% of patients rated their outcome as excellent or good. CONCLUSIONS. Failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing prostheses can be successfully revised without conversion to total hip replacement in most instances. A detailed knowledge of matching prostheses is necessary. Polyethylene prostheses for the acetabular or femoral reconstruction are often needed

Introduction. There has been much controversy around metal on metal hip replacements of late due to adverse metal reactions. There is evidence implicating lymphocyte mediated response (type IV delayed-hypersensitivity) to metal debris generated by the implants as one of the main factors responsible for the reactions. Our understanding of these adverse reactions continues to improve but we also recognize that the majority of patients with MOM implants are asymptomatic with well functioning implants. Studies have shown up to 16% allergy to metal ions on pre-operative allergy patch testing. We set out to determine the incidence of hypersensitivity to Cobalt, Chromium and Molybdenum in a arthroplasty population. Method. We assayed whole blood using a validated optimized lymphocyte transformation test, MELISA as part of a prospective randomized study on large diameter bearing surfaces. We recruited 47 subjects, 19 males, 28 females (35–75 yrs). Specific exclusions included presence of metal implants in the body and industrial exposure to metals. Results. Results were available for 46 patients. Four patients (9%) demonstrated hypersensitivity to Cobalt and none to Chromium or Molybdenum. Two were female and two male. The result was weakly positive in three patients and strongly positive in one female. Conclusion. Hypersensitivity in patients without prior exposure to Cobalt, Chromium and Molybdenum is low. The relevance of a positive hypersensitivity test and implications on the choice of bearings is a subject that requires further research. NO DISCLOSURES

Background. The failure and subsequent withdrawal of the ASR device in both its resurfacing and THR form has been well documented. The National Joint Registry report of 2010 quoted figures of 12–13% failure at five years. Adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) is a poorly understood condition and patients developing severe metal reactions may go unrecognised for sometime. Patients and Methods. In 2004 a single surgeons prospective study of the ASR bearing surface was undertaken. We present the ARMD failure rates of the ASR resurfacing and ASR THR systems. The diagnosis of ARMD was made by the senior author and was based on clinical history, examination, ultrasound findings, metal ion analysis of blood and joint fluid, operative findings and histopathological analysis of tissues retrieved at revision. Mean follow up was 52 months (24–81) and 70 patients were beyond 6 years of the procedure at the time of writing. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was carried out firstly with joints designated “failure” if the patient had undergone revision surgery or if the patient had been listed. A second survival analysis was carried out with a failure defined as a serum cobalt > 7µg/L. Full explant analysis was carried out for retrieved prostheses. Results. There were 505 ASR patients in total. 657 metal ion samples were available at the time of writing (152 repeats). Survival analysis using revision/listed as end point (at 6 years):. ASR resurfacing: 26.1% failure. ASR THR: 55.5% failure. Survival using ion analysis (at 5 years):. ASR resurfacing: 50.1% failure. ASR THR: 66.5% failure. The median (range) volumetric wear rate of failed prosthesis was 8.23mm. 3. /year (0.51–95.5). Conclusion. A number of design flaws in the ASR has led to excessive wear of the bearing & taper leading to catastrophic failure secondary to ARMD

Introduction. Modular femoral necks have shown promising clinical results in total hip arthroplasty (THA) to optimize offset, rotation, and leg length. Given the wide variety of proximal femoral morphology, fine-tuning these kinematic parameters can help decrease femoroacetabular impingement, decrease wear rates and help prevent dislocations. Yet, additional implant junctions introduce additional mechanisms of failure. We present two patients who developed an abnormal soft tissue reaction consistent with a metal hypersensitivity reaction at a modular femoral neck/stem junction requiring revision arthroplasty. Methods. Two patients underwent THA for primary osteoarthritis with the same series of components: 50 mm shell, a 36 mm highly-crosslinked polyethylene liner, uncemented titanium alloy modular stem with a 130 degree Cobalt Chromium (CoCr) modular femoral neck, and 36 mm CoCr head with a +5-mm offset. Patient 1 was a 63 year-old female who had an uneventful post-operative course but presented seven months later with progressive pain in the left hip. Patient 2 was an 80 year-old female who did well post-operatively, but presented with limp and persistent pain at 10 months post-op. An initial evaluation of a painful THA to rule out aseptic loosening, infection, mal-positioning, loosening and osteolysis included radiographs, lab work (CBC, ESR, CRP, Cobalt & Chromium levels) and Metal Artifact Reduction Sequence (MARS) MRI. Results. Elevated ion levels (Table 1) and Metal Artifact Reduction Sequence (MARS) MRI were consistent with an abnormal soft tissue reaction. A histological analysis of operative specimens displayed extensive necrosis and lymphocytosis, consistent with the diagnosis of metal hypersensitivity reactions (MHSR). Both patients underwent debridement and revision femoral arthroplasty with non-modular counterparts of the original femoral implant and have been asymptomatic post-operatively at greater than 1 year follow-up. Discussion. MHSR reactions are primarily described in the setting of metal on metal articulations of the head and acetabulum in THA and hip resurfacing. These reactions have not been reported at the modular neck/stem junction. Although modular necks show promise in THA, the advantages of increased component modularity must be carefully weighed against the risks of mechanical wear and subsequent MHSR and/or component failure

INTRODUCTION. The advantages of large diameter metal on metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty are decreased wear rate, preservation of bone stock, anatomical restoration and enhanced stability. Large amounts of metal wear particles and metal ions are released which may induce adverse reactions including local soft tissue toxicity, hypersensitivity reactions, bone loss and risk of carcinogenesis. Aseptic loosening can be the result of a peri-prosthetic osteolysis generated as a result of a biological response to particulate wear debris. No reports in the literature exist as to whether circulating levels of Chromium (Cr) and Cobalt (Co) decrease upon removal of a symptomatic large diameter MoM implant or whether levels remain high due to the effect of metal ions debris left behind in the soft tissues after revision surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS. Between June 2006 and June 2009 we undertook 44 revision surgeries of both large head MoM THAs (femoral head diameter 38mm) and metal-on-metal hip resurfacings for suspected metallosis. Mean time from original implant to revision was 4 years, 8 months (1yr 4mo–7yr 9mo). The mean follow up evaluation was 2 years and 2 months (1yr 2mo–4 years). Blood samples were taken for whole blood Cr and serum Co according to a recognised protocol and compared with reference levels indicated by the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency recommendation of less than 7ppb for Cr (130nM/L) and Co (119nM/L). RESULTS. 42 patients were found to have histological evidence of either metal allergy, metal toxicity or foreign body reaction. 2 patients had evidence of infection with no features of metal reaction. 3 patients suffered early dislocation requiring closed reduction. 1 patient had infective complications necessitating Girdlestones. 11 patients were lost to follow up, 8 patients were diagnosed pre operatively on Co and Cr levels in urine or synovial fluid aspirate alone. 23 patients had pre revision blood or serum metal ion level results available for direct comparison. Median serum Co level pre revision was 176.6nM/L, falling post revision to 5.1nM/L (p=<0.001∗). The median whole blood Cr level pre revision was 117nM/L and 19nm/L post revision (p=<0.001∗). Mean Oxford Hip Score was 23.7. DISCUSSION. This study demonstrates that at greater than one year post removal of a large diameter MoM hip implant for the indication of symptomatic metallosis or metal hypersensitivity, metal ion levels fall to almost normal levels and that outcome of revision surgery in terms of patient satisfaction is not adversely affected

Introduction. In recent years, an increasing number of reports related to adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published. Some patients who experience ARMD require revision surgery. Objectives. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the mid-term results of MOM THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent THA at JCHO Saitama medical center from January 2007 to December 2010. A metal liner and metal femoral head were used in 37 of 214 cases (17%). This sub-group comprised 2 men and 35 women (mean age at surgery, 63.5 years; range, 39–79 years). The original disease is 28 osteoarthritis, 5 osteonecrosis, 3 rheumatoid arthritis and 1 rapidly destructive hip coxarthropathy. We investigated the system type, size (cup, femoral head, and stem), and cup position (anteversion and inclination). Moreover, we used imaging (radiography and computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MR]) to assess for aseptic loosening, metal hypersensitivity reactions, and pseudotumor formation. Results. Six women with osteoarthritis experienced significant localized soft tissue reactions, and underwent revision. The average duration to revision was 41months(range, 28–63). Of these, 4 patients had received the PINNACLE cup system (Depuy; 4/14, 28.6%) and 2 had received the M2a-Taper cup system (BIOMET; 2/23, 8.7%). The femoral head sizes of the PINNACLE system used was 36 mm, and the femoral head sizes of the M2q-Taper systems used were 28mm and 32mm. Four patients had no signs or symptoms, 1 patient complained of anterior thigh dullness and 1 patient had a dislocation. The average cup anteversion was 15.7 degrees (range, 10–19 degrees) and the average inclination was 49.2 degrees (range, 43–57 degrees). Conclusions. MOM THA was associated with a higher incidence of revision. The majority of cases that required revision had no severe signs or symptoms. Therefore, all cases of MOM THA should be assessed periodically using CT or MRI

Hip resurfacing procedures have gained increasing popularity for younger, higher demand patients with degenerative hip pathologies. However, with concerns regarding revision rates and possible adverse metal hypersensitivity reactions with metal-on-metal articulations, some authors have questioned the hypothesised superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of these two procedures. A systematic review was undertaken of all published and unpublished research up to January 2010. The primary search was of the databases Medline, CINAHL, AMED and EMBASE, searched via Ovid using MeSH terms and Boolian operators ‘hip’ AND ‘replacement’ OR ‘arthroplasty’ AND ‘resurfacing’. A secondary search of unpublished literature was conducted using the databases SIGLE, the National Technical Information Service, the National Research Register (UK), the British Library's Integrated Catalogue and Current Controlled Trials databases using the same search terms as the primary search. All included studies were critically appraised with the CASP appraisal tool. In total, 46 studies were identified from 1124 citations. These included 3799 hip resurfacings and 3282 total hip arthroplasties. On meta-analysis, functional outcomes for subjects following hip resurfacing were better than or the same as subjects with a total hip arthroplasty, with significantly higher WOMAC score (Mean Difference (MD)=−2.41; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): −3.88, −0.94; p=0.001), and significantly better Harris Hip Score (range of motion component) (MD=−0.05; 95% CI: (−0.07, −0.03; p<0.0001) and overall Harris Hip Score (MD=2.51; 95% CI: 1.24, 3.77; p=0.0001) in the hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty cohorts. However, there were significantly greater incidences of heterotopic ossification (Risk Ratio (RR)=1.62; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.14; p=0.006), aseptic loosening (RR=3.07; 95% CI:1.11, 8.50;p=0.03) and revision surgery (RR=1.72; 95% CI: 1.20, 2.45; p=0.003) with hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty. The evidence-base presented with a number of methodological inadequacies such as the limited use of power calculations and poor or absent blinding of both patients and assessors, potentially giving rise to assessor bias. In respect to these factors, the current evidence-base, whilst substantial in its size, may be questioned in respect to its quality in determining superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty

The June 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Modular femoral necks: early signs are not good; is corrosion to blame for modular neck failures; metal-on-metal is not quite a closed book; no excess failures in fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures; noise no problem in hip replacement; heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy: are NSAIDs the answer?; thrombotic and bleeding events surprisingly low in total joint replacement; and the elephant in the room: complications and surgical volume.

The December 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Vitamin E infusion helpful in polyethylene; Hip replacement in fracture and arthritis; Non-surgical treatment for arthritis; Cost and approach in hip surgery; Who does well in FAI surgery?; AAOS Thromboembolism guidelines; Thromboprophylaxis and periprosthetic joint infection; Fluid collections not limited to metal-on-metal THR