We report a case of a male patient presenting with bilateral painful but apparently well-positioned and -fixed large-diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements four years post-operatively. Multiple imaging modes revealed a thick-walled, cystic expansile mass in communication with the hip joint (a pseudotumour). Implant retrieval analysis and tissue culture eliminated high bearing wear or infection as causes for the soft-tissue reaction, but noted marked corrosion of the modular neck taper adaptor and corrosion products in the tissues. Therefore, we believe corrosion products from the taper caused by mismatch of the implant components led to pseudotumour formation requiring revision.

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.

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 August 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: are we getting it right first time?; tantalum augments in revision hip surgery; lower wear in dual mobility?; changing faces changes outcomes; synovial fluid aspiration in MOM hips; taper disease: the new epidemic of hip surgery; the super-obese and THR; and whether well fixed stems can remain in infected hips

The October 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: functional acetabular orientation; predicting re-admission following THR; metal ions and resurfacing; lipped liners increase stability; all anaesthetics equal in hip fracture surgery; revision hip surgery in very young patients; and uncemented hips.

We explored the literature surrounding whether allergy and hypersensitivity has a clinical basis for implant selection in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In error, the terms hypersensitivity and allergy are often used synonymously. Although a relationship is present, we could not find any evidence of implant failure due to allergy. There is however increasing basic science that suggests a link between loosening and metal ion production. This is not an allergic response but is a potential problem. With a lack of evidence logically there can be no justification to use ‘hypoallergenic’ implants in patients who have pre-existing skin sensitivity to the metals used in TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:437–41.

Fracture of a ceramic component in total hip replacement is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication. The incidence is likely to increase as the use of ceramics becomes more widespread. We describe such a case, which illustrates how inadequate initial management will lead to further morbidity and require additional surgery. We present the case as a warning that fracture of a ceramic component should be revised to another ceramic-on-ceramic articulation in order to minimise the risk of further catastrophic wear.

The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacing arthroplasty has a failure rate of 12.0% at five years, compared with 4.3% for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). We analysed 66 ASR and 64 BHR explanted metal-on-metal hip replacements with the aim of understanding their mechanisms of failure. We measured the linear wear rates of the acetabular and femoral components and analysed the clinical cause of failure, pre-revision blood metal ion levels and orientation of the acetabular component.

There was no significant difference in metal ion levels (chromium, p = 0.82; cobalt, p = 0.40) or head wear rate (p = 0.14) between the two groups. The ASR had a significantly increased rate of wear of the acetabular component (p = 0.03) and a significantly increased occurrence of edge loading (p < 0.005), which can be attributed to differences in design between the ASR and BHR. The effects of differences in design on the in vivo wear rates are discussed: these may provide an explanation as to why the ASR is more sensitive to suboptimal positioning than the BHR.

Dual mobility cups have two points of articulation, one between the shell and the polyethylene (external bearing) and one between the polyethylene and the femoral head (internal bearing). Movement occurs at the inner bearing; the outer bearing only moves at extremes of movement.

Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a cause of much morbidity and its treatment has significant cost implications. Dual mobility cups provide an increased range of movement and a may reduce the risk of dislocation.

This paper reviews the use of these cups in THA, particularly where stability is an issue. Dual mobility cups may be of benefit in primary THA in patients at a high risk of dislocation, such as those who are older with increased comorbidities and a higher American Association of Anesthesiology grade and those with a neuromuscular disease. They may be used at revision surgery where the risk of dislocation is high, such as in patients with many prior dislocations, or those with abductor deficiency. They may also be used in THA for displaced fractures of the femoral neck, which has a notoriously high rate of dislocation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):60–3.

Hip resurfacing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty in young, active patients. Much has been learned following the introduction of metal-on-metal resurfacing devices in the 1990s. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical than with these implants.

Following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006, we studied the safety and effectiveness of one hip resurfacing device (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) at our hospital in a large, single-surgeon series. We report our early to mid–term results in 1333 cases followed for a mean of 4.3 years (2 to 5.7) using a prospective, observational registry. The mean patient age was 53.1 years (12 to 84); 70% were male and 91% had osteoarthritis. Complications were few, including no dislocations, no femoral component loosening, two femoral neck fractures (0.15%), one socket loosening (0.08%), three deep infections (0.23%), and three cases of metallosis (0.23%). There were no destructive pseudotumours.

Overall survivorship at up to 5.7 years was 99.2%. Aseptic survivorship in males under the age of 50 was 100%. We believe this is the largest United States series of a single surgeon using a single resurfacing system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B (1 Suppl A):10–13.

Nanotechnology is the study, production and controlled manipulation of materials with a grain size < 100 nm. At this level, the laws of classical mechanics fall away and those of quantum mechanics take over, resulting in unique behaviour of matter in terms of melting point, conductivity and reactivity. Additionally, and likely more significant, as grain size decreases, the ratio of surface area to volume drastically increases, allowing for greater interaction between implants and the surrounding cellular environment. This favourable increase in surface area plays an important role in mesenchymal cell differentiation and ultimately bone–implant interactions.

Basic science and translational research have revealed important potential applications for nanotechnology in orthopaedic surgery, particularly with regard to improving the interaction between implants and host bone. Nanophase materials more closely match the architecture of native trabecular bone, thereby greatly improving the osseo-integration of orthopaedic implants. Nanophase-coated prostheses can also reduce bacterial adhesion more than conventionally surfaced prostheses. Nanophase selenium has shown great promise when used for tumour reconstructions, as has nanophase silver in the management of traumatic wounds. Nanophase silver may significantly improve healing of peripheral nerve injuries, and nanophase gold has powerful anti-inflammatory effects on tendon inflammation.

Considerable advances must be made in our understanding of the potential health risks of production, implantation and wear patterns of nanophase devices before they are approved for clinical use. Their potential, however, is considerable, and is likely to benefit us all in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 569–73.

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.

Following the recall of modular neck hip stems in July 2012, research into femoral modularity will intensify over the next few years. This review aims to provide surgeons with an up-to-date summary of the clinically relevant evidence. The development of femoral modularity, and a classification system, is described. The theoretical rationale for modularity is summarised and the clinical outcomes are explored. The review also examines the clinically relevant problems reported following the use of femoral stems with a modular neck.

Joint replacement registries in the United Kingdom and Australia have provided data on the failure rates of modular devices but cannot identify the mechanism of failure. This information is needed to determine whether modular neck femoral stems will be used in the future, and how we should monitor patients who already have them implanted.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1011–21.

We undertook a retrospective cohort study to determine clinical outcomes following the revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify predictors of time to revision and outcomes following revision. Between 1998 and 2012 a total of 64 MoM hips (mean age at revision of 57.8 years; 46 (72%) female; 46 (72%) hip resurfacings and 18 (28%) total hip replacements) were revised for ARMD at one specialist centre. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1.0 to 14.6) from revision for ARMD there were 13 hips (20.3%) with post-operative complications and eight (12.5%) requiring re-revision.

The Kaplan–Meier five-year survival rate for ARMD revision was 87.9% (95% confidence interval 78.9 to 98.0; 19 hips at risk). Excluding re-revisions, the median absolute Oxford hip score (OHS) following ARMD revision using the percentage method (0% best outcome and 100% worst outcome) was 18.8% (interquartile range (IQR) 7.8% to 48.3%), which is equivalent to 39/48 (IQR 24.8/48 to 44.3/48) when using the modified OHS. Histopathological response did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.334) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.879). Similarly, the presence or absence of a contralateral MoM hip bearing did not affect time to revision for ARMD (p = 0.066) or the subsequent risk of re-revision (p = 0.178).

Patients revised to MoM bearings had higher rates of re-revision (five of 16 MoM hips re-revised; p = 0.046), but those not requiring re-revision had good functional results (median absolute OHS 14.6% or 41.0/48). Short-term morbidity following revision for ARMD was comparable with previous reports. Caution should be exercised when choosing bearing surfaces for ARMD revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1600–9.

Surface hip replacement (SHR) is generally used in younger, active patients as an alternative conventional total hip replacement in part because of the ability to preserve femoral bone. This major benefit of surface replacement will only hold true if revision procedures of SHRs are found to provide good clinical results.

A retrospective review of SHR revisions between 2007 and 2012 was presented, and the type of revision and aetiologies were recorded. There were 55 SHR revisions, of which 27 were in women. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (0.72 to 6.4), the mean post-operative Harris hip score (HHS) was 94.8 (66 to 100). Overall 23 were revised for mechanical reasons, nine for impingement, 13 for metallosis, nine for unexplained pain and one for sepsis. Of the type of revision surgery performed, 14 were femoral-only revisions; four were acetabular-only revisions, and 37 were complete revisions.

We did not find that clinical scores were significantly different between gender or different types of revisions. However, the mean post-operative HHS was significantly lower in patients revised for unexplained pain compared with patients revised for mechanical reasons (86.9 (66 to 100) versus 99 (96 to 100); p = 0.029). There were two re-revisions for infection in the entire cohort.

Based on the overall clinical results, we believe that revision of SHR can have good or excellent results and warrants a continued use of the procedure in selected patients. Close monitoring of these patients facilitates early intervention, as we believe that tissue damage may be related to the duration of an ongoing problem. There should be a low threshold to revise a surface replacement if there is component malposition, rising metal ion levels, or evidence of soft-tissue abnormalities.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:88–91.

Aims

We present a case series of ten metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties (MoP THAs) with delayed dislocation associated with unrecognised adverse local tissue reaction due to corrosion at the trunnion and pseudotumour formation.

Aims

Oxidised zirconium was introduced as a material for femoral components in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as an attempt to reduce polyethylene wear. However, the long-term survival of this component is not known.

The June 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether metal-on-metal is really such a disaster; resurfacings with unexplained pain; large heads and high ion levels; hip arthroscopy for FAI; the inaccuracy of clinical tests for impingement; arthroscopic lengthening of iliopsoas; the OA hip; the injured hamstring – football’s most common injury; an algorithm for hip fracture surgery; and sparing piriformis at THR.

As adverse events related to metal on metal hip arthroplasty have been better understood, there has been increased interest in toxicity related to the high circulating levels of cobalt ions. However, distinguishing true toxicity from benign elevations in cobalt levels can be challenging. The purpose of this review is to examine the use of cobalt alloys in total hip arthroplasty, to review the methods of measuring circulating cobalt levels, to define a level of cobalt which is considered pathological and to review the pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment of cobalt toxicity. To the best of our knowledge, there are 18 published cases where cobalt metal ion toxicity has been attributed to the use of cobalt-chromium alloys in hip arthroplasty. Of these cases, the great majority reported systemic toxic reactions at serum cobalt levels more than 100 μg/L. This review highlights some of the clinical features of cobalt toxicity, with the goal that early awareness may decrease the risk factors for the development of cobalt toxicity and/or reduce its severity.

Take home message: Severe adverse events can arise from the release of cobalt from metal-on-metal arthroplasties, and as such, orthopaedic surgeons should not only be aware of the presenting problems, but also have the knowledge to treat appropriately.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:14–20.