T-cells are considered to play an important role in the inflammatory response causing arthroplasty failure. The study objectives were to investigate the composition and distribution of CD4+ T-cell phenotypes in the peripheral blood (PB) and synovial fluid (SF) of patients undergoing revision surgery for failed metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) hip arthroplasties, and in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty. In this prospective case-control study, PB and SF were obtained from 22 patients (23 hips) undergoing revision of MoM (n = 14) and MoP (n = 9) hip arthroplasties, with eight controls provided from primary hip osteoarthritis cases awaiting arthroplasty. Lymphocyte subtypes in samples were analysed using flow cytometry.Objectives
Methods
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:
