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.

Since 1996 more than one million metal-on-metal articulations have been implanted worldwide. Adverse reactions to metal debris are escalating. Here we present an algorithmic approach to patient management. The general approach to all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up begins with a detailed history, querying for pain, discomfort or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be evaluated for intra-articular and extra-articular causes of pain. In large head MoM arthroplasty, aseptic loosening may be the source of pain and is frequently difficult to diagnose. Sepsis should be ruled out as a source of pain. Plain radiographs are evaluated to rule out loosening and osteolysis, and assess component position. Laboratory evaluation commences with erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, which may be elevated. Serum metal ions should be assessed by an approved facility. Aspiration, with manual cell count and culture/sensitivity should be performed, with cloudy to creamy fluid with predominance of monocytes often indicative of failure. Imaging should include ultrasound or metal artifact reduction sequence MRI, specifically evaluating for fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. If adverse reaction to metal debris is suspected then revision to metal or ceramic-on-polyethylene is indicated and can be successful. Delay may be associated with extensive soft-tissue damage and hence poor clinical outcome.

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.

Modern metal-on-metal bearings produce less wear debris and osteolysis, but have the potential adverse effect of release of ions. Improved ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have the lowest wear of all, but the corrosion process has not been analysed.

Our aim was to measure the serum ion release (ng/ml) in 23 patients having stable hip prostheses with a ceramic-on-ceramic coupling (group A) and to compare it with the release in 42 patients with a metal-on-metal bearing (group B) in the medium term. Reference values were obtained from a population of 47 healthy subjects (group C). The concentrations of chromium, cobalt, aluminium and titanium were measured.

There was a significant increase of cobalt, chromium and aluminium levels (p < 0.05) in group B compared with groups A and C. Group A did not differ significantly from the control group. Despite the apparent advantage of a metal-on-metal coupling, especially in younger patients with a long life expectancy, a major concern arises regarding the extent and duration of ion exposure. For this reason, the low corrosion level in a ceramic-on-ceramic coupling could be advantageous.

The rate and mode of early failure in 463 Birmingham hip resurfacings in a two-centre, multisurgeon series were examined. Of the 463 patients two have died and three were lost to follow-up. The mean radiological and clinical follow-up was for 43 months (6 to 90).

We have revised 13 resurfacings (2.8%) including seven for pain, three for fracture, two for dislocation and another for sepsis. Of these, nine had macroscopic and histological evidence of metallosis. The survival at five years was 95.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1 to 96.8) for revision for all causes and 96.9% (95% CI 95.5 to 98.3) for metallosis.

The rate of metallosis related revision was 3.1% at five years. Risk factors for metallosis were female gender, a small femoral component, a high abduction angle and obesity. We do not advocate the use of the Birmingham Hip resurfacing procedure in patients with these risk factors.

We report a 12- to 15-year implant survival assessment of a prospective single-surgeon series of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). The earliest 1000 consecutive BHRs including 288 women (335 hips) and 598 men (665 hips) of all ages and diagnoses with no exclusions were prospectively followed-up with postal questionnaires, of whom the first 402 BHRs (350 patients) also had clinical and radiological review.

Mean follow-up was 13.7 years (12.3 to 15.3). In total, 59 patients (68 hips) died 0.7 to 12.6 years following surgery from unrelated causes. There were 38 revisions, 0.1 to 13.9 years (median 8.7) following operation, including 17 femoral failures (1.7%) and seven each of infections, soft-tissue reactions and other causes. With revision for any reason as the end-point Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed 97.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9 to 97.9) and 95.8% (95% CI 95.1 to 96.5) survival at ten and 15 years, respectively. Radiological assessment showed 11 (3.5%) femoral and 13 (4.1%) acetabular radiolucencies which were not deemed failures and one radiological femoral failure (0.3%).

Our study shows that the performance of the BHR continues to be good at 12- to 15-year follow-up. Men have better implant survival (98.0%; 95% CI 97.4 to 98.6) at 15 years than women (91.5%; 95% CI 89.8 to 93.2), and women < 60 years (90.5%; 95% CI 88.3 to 92.7) fare worse than others. Hip dysplasia and osteonecrosis are risk factors for failure. Patients under 50 years with osteoarthritis fare best (99.4%; 95% CI 98.8 to 100 survival at 15 years), with no failures in men in this group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1298–1306.

Aims

Long-term clinical outcomes for ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings are encouraging. However, there is a risk of squeaking. Guidelines for the orientation of the acetabular component are defined from static imaging, but the position of the pelvis and thus the acetabular component during activities associated with edge-loading are likely to be very different from those measured when the patient is supine. We assessed the functional orientation of the acetabular component.

Hip replacement is a very successful operation and the outcome is usually excellent. There are recognised complications that seem increasingly to give rise to litigation. This paper briefly examines some common scenarios where litigation may be pursued against hip surgeons. With appropriate record keeping, consenting and surgical care, the claim can be successfully defended if not avoided. We hope this short summary will help to highlight some common pitfalls. There is extensive literature available for detailed study.

A modular femoral head–neck junction has practical advantages in total hip replacement. Taper fretting and corrosion have so far been an infrequent cause of revision. The role of design and manufacturing variables continues to be debated. Over the past decade several changes in technology and clinical practice might result in an increase in clinically significant taper fretting and corrosion. Those factors include an increased usage of large diameter (36 mm) heads, reduced femoral neck and taper dimensions, greater variability in taper assembly with smaller incision surgery, and higher taper stresses due to increased patient weight and/or physical activity. Additional studies are needed to determine the role of taper assembly compared with design, manufacturing and other implant variables.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:3–6.

The October 2013 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Orthopaedics: a dangerous profession?; Freezing and biomarkers for bone turnover; Herniation or degeneration first?; MARS MRI and metallosis; Programmed cell death in partial thickness cuff tears; Lead glasses for trauma surgery?; Smoking inhibits bone healing; Optimising polyethylene microstructure.

Metal artefact reduction (MAR) MRI is now widely considered to be the standard for imaging metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has recommended cross-sectional imaging for all patients with symptomatic MoM bearings. This paper describes the natural history of MoM disease in a 28 mm MoM total hip replacement (THR) using MAR MRI. Inclusion criteria were patients with MoM THRs who had not been revised and had at least two serial MAR MRI scans. All examinations were reported by an experienced observer and classified as A (normal), B (infection) or C1–C3 (mild, moderate, severe MoM-related abnormalities). Between 2002 and 2011 a total of 239 MRIs were performed on 80 patients (two to four scans per THR); 63 initial MRIs (61%) were normal. On subsequent MRIs, six initially normal scans (9.5%) showed progression to a disease state; 15 (15%) of 103 THRs with sequential scans demonstrated worsening disease on subsequent imaging.

Most patients with a MoM THR who do not undergo early revision have normal MRI scans. Late progression (from normal to abnormal, or from mild to more severe MoM disease) is not common and takes place over several years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1035–9.

A total of 397 hips were randomised to receive Metasul metal-on-metal (MoM), metal-on-conventional polyethylene (MoP) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearings using a cemented triple-tapered polished femoral component (MS-30). There were 129 MoM hips in 123 patients (39 male and 84 female, mean age 63.3 years (40.7 to 72.9)), 137 MoP hips in 127 patients (39 male and 88 female, mean age 62.8 years (24.5 to 72.7)) and 131 CoP hips in 124 patients (51 male and 73 female, mean age 63.9 years (30.6 to 73.8)). All acetabular components were cemented Weber polyethylene components with the appropriate inlay for the MoM articulation. Clinical evaluation was undertaken using the Harris hip score (HHS) and radiological assessments were made at two, five and seven years. The HHS and radiological analysis were available for 341 hips after seven years. The MoM group had the lowest mean HHS (p = 0.124), a higher rate of revision (p < 0.001) and a higher incidence of radiolucent lines in unrevised hips (p < 0.001). In all, 12 revisions had been performed in 12 patients: eight in the MoM group (four for infection, four for aseptic loosening, three in the MoP group (one each of infection, dislocation and pain) and one in the CoP group (infection).

Our findings reveal no advantage to the MoM bearing and identified a higher revision rate and a greater incidence of radiolucent lines than with the other articulations. We recommend that patients with a 28 mm Metasul MoM bearing be followed carefully.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:881–6.

Objectives

An ongoing prospective study to investigate failing metal-on-metal hip prostheses was commenced at our centre in 2008. We report on the results of the analysis of the first consecutive 126 failed mated total hip prostheses from a single manufacturer.

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.

We review the history and literature of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Resurfacing and the science behind it continues to evolve. Recent results, particularly from the national arthroplasty registers, have spread disquiet among both surgeons and patients. A hip resurfacing arthroplasty is not a total hip replacement, but should perhaps be seen as a means of delaying it. The time when hip resurfacing is offered to a patient may be different from that for a total hip replacement. The same logic can apply to the timing of revision surgery. Consequently, the comparison of resurfacing with total hip replacement may be a false one. Nevertheless, the need for innovative solutions for young arthroplasty patients is clear. Total hip replacement can be usefully delayed in many of these patients by the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Objectives

High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

In this paper, we will consider the current role of metal-on-metal bearings by looking at three subtypes of MoM hip arthroplasty separately: Hip resurfacing, large head (> 36 mm) MoM THA and MoM THA with traditional femoral head sizes.