Aims. There are many guidelines that help direct the management of patients with metal-on-metal (MOM) hip arthroplasties. We have undertaken a study to compare the management of patients with MOM hip arthroplasties in different countries. . Methods. Six international tertiary referral orthopaedic centres were invited to participate by organising a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting, consisting of two or more revision hip arthroplasty surgeons and a musculoskeletal radiologist. A full clinical dataset including history, blood tests and imaging for ten patients was sent to each unit, for discussion and treatment planning. Differences in the interpretation of findings, management decisions and rationale for decisions were compared using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results. Overall agreement between the orthopaedic centres and the recommended treatment plans for the ten patients with MOM hip implants was moderate (kappa = 0.6). Full agreement was seen in a third of cases, however split decisions were also seen in a third of cases. Units differed in their interpretation of the significance of the investigation findings and put varying emphasis on serial changes, in the presence of symptoms. Discussion. In conclusion, the management of raised or rising blood metal ions, cystic pseudotumours and peri-acetabular osteolysis led to inconsistency in the agreement between centres. Coordinated international guidance and MDT panel discussions are recommended to improve consensus in decision making. Take home message: A lack of evidence and the subsequent variation in regulator guidance leads to differences in opinions, the clinical impact of which can be reduced through a multi-disciplinary team approach to managing patients with MOM hip implants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:179–86

Aims

Advocates of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) in hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) argue that a procedure not disturbing a sound prosthesis-bone interface is likely to lead to better survival and functional outcome compared with revision. This case-control study aims were to compare outcome of DAIRs for infected primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with outcomes following primary THA and two-stage revision of infected primary THAs.

We investigated the changes seen on serial metal artefact reduction magnetic resonance imaging scans (MARS-MRI) of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (MoM THAs). In total 155 THAs, in 35 male and 100 female patients (mean age 70.4 years, 42 to 91), underwent at least two MRI scans at a mean interval of 14.6 months (2.6 to 57.1), at a mean of 48.2 months (3.5 to 93.3) after primary hip surgery. Scans were graded using a modification of the Oxford classification. Progression of disease was defined as an increase in grade or a minimum 10% increase in fluid lesion volume at second scan. A total of 16 hips (30%) initially classified as ‘normal’ developed an abnormality on the second scan. Of those with ‘isolated trochanteric fluid’ 9 (47%) underwent disease progression, as did 7 (58%) of ‘effusions’. A total of 54 (77%) of hips initially classified as showing adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) progressed, with higher rates of progression in higher grades. Disease progression was associated with high blood cobalt levels or an irregular pseudocapsule lining at the initial scan. There was no association with changes in functional scores. Adverse reactions to metal debris in MoM THAs may not be as benign as previous reports have suggested. Close radiological follow-up is recommended, particularly in high-risk groups.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1328–37.