header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 6 | Pages 540 - 547
1 Jun 2024
Nandra RS Elnahal WA Mayne A Brash L McBryde CW Treacy RBC

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon’s consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years.

Methods

The study extends the reporting on the first consecutive 144 resurfacing procedures in 130 patients for all indications. All operations were undertaken between August 1997 and May 1998. The mean age at operation was 52.1 years (SD 9.93; 17 to 76), and included 37 female patients (28.5%). Failure was defined as revision of either component for any reason. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Routine follow-up with serum metal ion levels, radiographs, and Oxford Hip Scores (OHSs) was undertaken.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_5 | Pages 21 - 21
1 Jul 2020
Nandra R Ahmed U Berryman F Brash L Dunlop D Matharu G
Full Access

Introduction

Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients, and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed if patients were not recalled.

Methods

All BHR patients subject to the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes 46mm or below, regardless of symptoms) at one specialist centre were invited for review (707 hips). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data, as was the number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid missing one case of asymptomatic ARMD.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1455 - 1462
1 Nov 2016
Matharu GS Berryman F Brash L Pynsent PB Dunlop DJ Treacy RBC

Aims

We investigated whether blood metal ion levels could effectively identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants who have adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD).

Patients and Methods

Metal ion levels in whole blood were measured in 185 patients with bilateral BHRs. Patients were divided into those with ARMD who either had undergone a revision for ARMD or had ARMD on imaging (n = 30), and those without ARMD (n = 155). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the optimal thresholds of blood metal ion levels for identifying patients with ARMD.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_11 | Pages 21 - 21
1 Jun 2016
Matharu G Berryman F Brash L Pynsent P Dunlop D Treacy R
Full Access

Introduction

We investigated whether blood metal ions could effectively identify bilateral metal-on-metal hip patients at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD).

Patients and methods

This single-centre, prospective study involved 235 patients (185 bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs) and 50 bilateral Corail-Pinnacles) undergoing whole blood metal ion sampling (mean time=6.8 years from latest implant to sampling). Patients were divided into ARMD (revised or ARMD on imaging; n=40) and non-ARMD groups (n=195). Metal ion parameters (cobalt; chromium; maximum cobalt or chromium; cobalt-chromium ratio) were compared between groups. Optimal metal ion thresholds for identifying ARMD patients were determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, which compares the performance of different tests using the area under the curve (AUC) (higher AUC=more discriminatory).