Patients from a randomised trial on resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) (n = 36, 19 males; median age 57 years, 24 to 65) comparing a conventional 28 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA) (n = 28, 17 males; median age 59 years, 37 to 65) and a matched control group of asymptomatic patients with a 32 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) THA (n = 33, 18 males; median age 63 years, 38 to 71) were cross-sectionally screened with metal artefact reducing sequence-MRI (MARS-MRI) for pseudotumour formation at a median of 55 months (23 to 72) post-operatively. MRIs were scored by consensus according to three different classification systems for pseudotumour formation.

Clinical scores were available for all patients and metal ion levels for MoM bearing patients.

Periprosthetic lesions with a median volume of 16 mL (1.5 to 35.9) were diagnosed in six patients in the RHA group (17%), one in the MoM THA group (4%) and six in the CoP group (18%). The classification systems revealed no clear differences between the groups. Solid lesions (n = 3) were exclusively encountered in the RHA group. Two patients in the RHA group and one in the MoM THA group underwent a revision for pseudotumour formation. There was no statistically significant relationship between clinical scoring, metal ion levels and periprosthetic lesions in any of the groups.

Periprosthetic fluid collections are seen on MARS-MRI after conventional CoP THA and RHA and may reflect a soft-tissue collection or effusion.

Currently available MRI classification systems seem to score these collections as pseudotumours, causing an-overestimatation of the incidence of pseudotumours.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1175–82.

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):17–21

Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty gained significant favor in the first decade of the millennium. However, the past several years have seen increasing reports of failure, pseudotumor and other adverse reactions. This study presents the results of a single center’s 15-year experience with metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty as strong evidence that metal-on-metal is going, going, gone

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare two different types of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing for total hip arthroplasty (THA): one with a large femoral head (38 mm to 52 mm) and the other with a conventional femoral head (28 mm or 32 mm). We compared clinical outcome, blood metal ion levels, and the incidence of pseudotumour in the two groups.

The differential diagnosis of the painful total hip arthroplasty (resurfacing or total hip) includes infection, failure of fixation (loosening), tendinitis, bursitis, synovitis, adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to cobalt-chromium alloys, and non-hip issues, such as spinal disorders, hernia, gynecologic, and other pelvic pain. Assuming that the hip is the source of pain, the first level question is prosthetic or non-prosthetic pain generator? The second level prosthetic question is septic or aseptic? The third level question (aseptic hips) is well-fixed or loose? ALTR is best diagnosed by cross-sectional imaging. Successful treatment is dependent on correct identification and elimination of the pain generator. Treatment recommendations for ALTR and taper corrosion are evolving.

The use of large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with an increased risk of early failure due to adverse local tissue reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in response to the release of metal ions from the bearing couple and/or head-neck taper corrosion. The aim of this paper was to present a review of the incidence and natural history of ARMD and the forms of treatment, with a focus on the need for and extent of resection or debulking of the pseudotumour. An illustrative case report is presented of a patient with an intra-pelvic pseudotumour associated with a large diameter MoM THA, which was treated successfully with revision of the bearing surface to a dual mobility couple and retention of the well-fixed acetabular and femoral components. The pseudotumour was left in situ. Resolution of the intra-pelvic mass and normalisation of metal ion levels was observed seven months post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:736–40.

Aims

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head. Our aim was to report the long-term outcome of HRA, which is not currently known.

Hip implant retrieval analysis is the most important source of insight into the performance of new materials and designs of hip arthroplasties. Even the most rigorous in vitro testing will not accurately simulate the behavior of implant materials and new designs of prosthetic arthroplasties. Retrieval analysis has revealed such factors as the effects of gamma-in-air sterilisation of polyethylene, fatigue failure mechanisms of polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, fretting corrosion of Morse taper junctions, third body wear effects of both hard-on-hard and hard-on-soft bearing couples, and the effects of impingement of components on the full spectrum of bearing surfaces, none of which was predicted by pre-implantation in vitro testing of these materials and combinations. The temporal sequence of the retrieval process is approximately six years from first implantation through retrieval analysis, laboratory investigation, and publication of results, and thus, in addition to rigorous clinical evaluation, represents the true development and insight cycle for new designs and materials.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is commonly associated with early hip arthritis. We reviewed our series of 1300 hip resurfacing procedures. More than 90% of our male patients, with an average age of 53 years, had cam impingement lesions. In this condition, there are anterior femoral neck osteophytes, and a retroverted femoral head on a normally anteverted neck. It is postulated that FAI results in collision of the anterior neck of the femur against the rim of the acetabulum, causing damage to the acetabular labrum and articular cartilage, resulting in osteoarthritis. Early treatment of FAI involves arthroscopic or open removal of bone from the anterior femoral neck, as well as repair or removal of labral tears. However, once osteoarthritis has developed, hip replacement or hip resurfacing is indicated. Hip resurfacing can re-orient the head and re-shape the neck. This helps to restore normal biomechanics to the hip, eliminate FAI, and improve range of motion. Since many younger men with hip arthritis have FAI, and are also considered the best candidates for hip resurfacing, it is evident that resurfacing has a role in these patients.

A moderator and panel of five experts led an interactive session in discussing five challenging and interesting patient case presentations involving surgery of the hip. The hip pathologies reviewed included failed open reduction internal fixation of subcapital femoral neck fracture, bilateral hip disease, evaluation of pain after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, avascular necrosis, aseptic loosening secondary to osteolysis and polyethylene wear, and management of ceramic femoral head fracture.

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature focusing on metal sensitivity testing in patients undergoing total joint replacement (TJR). Our purpose was to assess the risk of developing metal hypersensitivity post-operatively and its relationship with outcome and to investigate the advantages of performing hypersensitivity testing.

We undertook a comprehensive search of the citations quoted in PubMed and EMBASE: 22 articles (comprising 3634 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of positive tests increased after TJR, especially in patients with implant failure or a metal-on-metal coupling. The probability of developing a metal allergy was higher post-operatively (odds ratio (OR) 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.31)), and the risk was further increased when failed implants were compared with stable TJRs (OR 2.76 (95% CI 1.14 to 6.70)).

Hypersensitivity testing was not able to discriminate between stable and failed TJRs, as its predictive value was not statistically proven. However, it is generally thought that hypersensitivity testing should be performed in patients with a history of metal allergy and in failed TJRs, especially with metal-on-metal implants and when the cause of the loosening is doubtful.

We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature to relate the survival of hybrid metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty devices to a National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark for choosing a primary total hip replacement, which is a survival rate of 90% at a follow-up of ten years.

A total of 29 articles (10 621 resurfaced hips) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 0.6 to 10.5 years and the survival of the implant ranged from 84% to 100%. Of the 10 621 hips, 370 were revised (3.5%), with aseptic loosening as the most frequent mode of failure.

None of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants used to date met the full ten-year NICE benchmark of survival. A total of 13 studies showed satisfactory survival compared with the three-year NICE benchmark.