Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Risk factors for wear-related failures after hip resurfacing in patients with a low contact patch to rim distance



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

A contact patch to rim (CPR) distance of < 10 mm has been associated with edge-loading and excessive wear. However, not all arthroplasties with a low CPR distance show problems with wear. Therefore, CPR distance may not be the only variable affecting the post-operative metal ion concentrations.

Patients and Methods

We used multiple logistic regression to determine what variables differed between the patients who had high and low cobalt (CoS) and chromium (CrS) serum ion concentrations within a cohort of patients with low (< 10 mm) CPR distances. A total of 56 patients treated with unilateral hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) had CoS and CrS ion studies performed more than one year after surgery. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 51.7 years (29 to 70), with 38 women (68%) and 18 men (32%).

Results

It was seen that 47 patients had low ion levels (< 7µg/L) and nine had high ion levels (≥ 7µg/L). We found increased risks of high wear with decreasing CPR distance.

Conclusion

The use of CPR distance measurements to predict hips at risk for elevated wear is needed for all patients with HRA. We recommend that patients with low CPR distances have at least one serum ion study performed while patients with CPR distance > 10 mm do not need routine ion studies. We believe that patients with low CPR distance and low ions do not need repeat ion studies unless the patient becomes symptomatic or has substantial radiographic changes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:865–71.


Correspondence should be sent to H. C. Amstutz; email:

For access options please click here