How to Approach a Recalled Dual Modular Hip Implant: An Update

Bimodular femoral stems in primary total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

This review critically examines the efficacy of dual-modular stems in primary total hip arthroplasty. Given the variability and non-comparability of certain femoral stem designs and stem-neck couplings, with some even being withdrawn from the market, this review offers an in-depth analysis of predominant implant performances.

AREAS COVERED

The paper explores a brief historical summary related to dual-modular stems, including the complications associated with their use, diagnostic tools for evaluation, analysis of both recalled and currently available models, as well as alternative therapeutic options. This information is pertinent for both clinical and research domains.

EXPERT OPINION

While dual-modular systems were initially touted to offer several advantages, the evidence substantiating these benefits has been ambiguous. Further, these systems introduce the risk of alternative complications. In specific cases involving patients with developmental hip dysplasia and certain proximal femoral deformities requiring complex reconstructions, dual-modular systems might be relevant. Nonetheless, the use of long interchangeable necks in patients with a body mass index above 30 kg/m2 is discouraged, and pairing a long varus-oriented neck with an extra-long femoral head should be avoided in all patients.

Investigation and analysis of four countries' recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from 2011 to 2021

Background

Medical devices are used in almost all orthopedic surgical subspecialties, and the frequency of adverse events is increasing, which should not be ignored. To provide suggestions on how to avoid implant recalls from the perspective of manufacturers, medical institutions and supervisions, as well as how to respond promptly to adverse events.

Methods

The research extracted recalls of osteosynthesis implants and joint replacement implants from January 1, 2011, to June 30, 2021, in the CNMPA, FDA, HC and ATGA websites and collected the information on device name, recall time, recall class, recall manufacturer, device classification and affected areas. Moreover, the McKinsey 7S model and fishbone diagram were used to analyze recall reasons.

Results

A total of 315 cases of osteosynthesis implants and 286 cases of joint replacement implants were reported in China, the USA, Canada and Australia. The recalls number from 2016 to 2021 was more than that from 2011 to 2015 for osteosynthesis implant (p = 0.012) and joint replacement implant (p = 0.002), and both mainly focused on class II (76.19% and 78.32%). There were statistical differences in the four countries for both implants (p = 0.000), especially osteosynthesis implant between China and the USA (p = 0.000), China and Canada (p = 0.001), the USA and Australia (p = 0.002), and joint replacement implant between China and Australia (p = 0.000).

Conclusions

To avoid the recalls of such implants, manufacturers should strictly select implant materials and components, develop detailed labels and instructions, severely control the packaging process and establish the integrity of medical device data. Medical institutions should standardize procurement procedures, use qualified equipment and train medical workers. It also requires supervisions to conduct premarket safety assessments. In addition, regulators should strengthen supervision and establish reporting systems to deal with the occurrence of adverse events promptly.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03332-w.

Outcome of revision surgery for adverse local tissue reactions in patients with recalled total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Recalls of total hip arthroplasty (THA) implants, including metal-on-metal (MoM) THA and dual taper stems, due to increased risk of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR), represent a challenge for both surgeons and patients. This study aims to analyze the revision surgery outcomes for ALTR in patients with recalled THA implants.

METHODS

A total of 118 consecutive patients who underwent revision surgery due to ALTR with recalled THA were analyzed. Sub-group analysis was performed for recalled MoM THAs, head-neck modular stems, and dual taper neck-stems.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 6.6 years, the complication and reoperation rates of the recalled THAs were 32.2% and 25.4% respectively. The most common post-revision complication was dislocation (16%). Revision of modular taper corrosion THA and high-grade intraoperative tissue damage were risk factors associated with post-revision complications.

CONCLUSION

This study reports high complication and reoperation rates of recalled THAs at mid-term follow-up. The high revision surgery complication rates in both groups suggest the importance of a systematic evaluation of all THA patients with at-risk implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case control retrospective analysis.

Dual Modular Titanium Alloy Femoral Stem Failure Mechanisms and Suggested Clinical Approaches

Titanium (Ti) alloys have been proven to be one of the most suitable materials for orthopaedic implants. Dual modular stems have been introduced to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) to enable better control of the femoral offset, leg length, and hip stability. This systematic review highlights information acquired for dual modular Ti stem complications published in the last 12 years and offers a conclusive discussion of the gathered knowledge. Articles referring to dual modular stem usage, survivorship, and complications in English were searched from 2009 to the present day. A qualitative synthesis of literature was carried out, excluding articles referring solely to other types of junctions or problems with cobalt-chromium alloys in detail. In total, 515 records were identified through database searching and 78 journal articles or conference proceedings were found. The reasons for a modular neck fracture of a Ti alloy are multifactorial. Even though dual modular stems have not shown any clinical benefits for patients and have been associated with worse results regarding durability than monolithic stems, some designs are still marketed worldwide. Orthopaedic surgeons should use Ti6Al4V dual modular stem designs for primary THA in special cases only.

Interchangeable neck failures of bi-modular femoral stems in primary total hip arthroplasty cannot be predicted from serum trace element analysis

INTRODUCTION

Revision of a well-fixed stem due to unexpected modular neck fracture is a catastrophe for the patient and a challenge for the surgeon. This study aimed to test the possibility of predicting interchangeable neck fracture from serum levels of the stem/neck alloy-consisting metals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients at high risk for interchangeable neck fracture were randomly selected out of a cohort of 680 bimodular stems made from Ti6Al4V alloy. Serum levels of titanium, aluminium and vanadium were determined. Nine age- and gender-matched patients were used as controls.

RESULTS

Mean serum levels of Ti were 6.04 ± 2.52 μg/L, of Al 3.89 ± 1.68 μg/L and of V 0.07 ± 0.04 μg/L in the high-risk group, and 8.22 ± 4.74 μg/L, 4.99 ± 3.98 μg/L and 0.27 ± 0.44 μg/L in the low-risk group, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups.

DISCUSSION

Interchangeable neck fracture of bimodular femoral stems cannot be predicted from serum trace element analysis.

Modular Dual-Mobility Liner Malseating: A Radiographic Analysis

Background

With dislocation as a leading cause for revision after total hip arthroplasty (THA), modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs are more commonly used at present in an attempt to decrease postoperative instability. With modularity, there is potential for additional complications, including malseating of the liner. The goal of this study was to perform a radiographic analysis on the incidence of MDM liner malseating.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 305 patients (305 THAs) who underwent primary THA with an MDM liner from a single manufacturer inserted by a single surgeon. One hundred fifty-six (51%) patients were male. The mean age was 68 years, and the mean body mass index was 31 kg/m². Only patients with both anteroposterior and cross-table lateral radiographs at a minimum of 6 weeks postoperatively were included. Dislocations and reoperations were determined at 1 year after the procedure. All MDM liners were routinely tested intraoperatively with a "4-quadrant test" to assess for proper seating.

Results

Four (4/305, 1.3%) MDM liners were noted to be radiographically malseated at early follow-up with three (3/147, 2.0%) occurring in a thinner two dimentional (2D) ongrowth shell and only one (1/158, 0.6%) observed in a thicker three dimentional (3D) additively manufactured shell. They were inferiorly prominent by a median of 1.2 mm, best seen on the cross-table lateral radiograph. In patients with at least 1-year follow-up, no MDM liners dissociated and no patients sustained a dislocation. Five (1.6%) patients required reoperation unrelated to the acetabular or MDM construct.

Conclusions

Surgeons should be aware that malseating of dual-mobility liners may occur. However, with utilization of a consistent surgical technique to test for seating of the liner, the radiographic incidence of MDM liner malseating was low at 1%. Although there were no short-term clinical implications of liner malseating, long-term follow-up is needed.

Medical Device Recalls in Orthopedics: Recent Trends and Areas for Improvement

BACKGROUND

Medical device recalls have the potential to affect patient outcomes in orthopedic surgery. We assessed high-risk orthopedic medical device recalls in the recent past.

METHODS

The publicly available Food and Drug Administration medical device recall database was mined for information on class 1 and class 2 recalls of orthopedic implants or medical devices related to orthopedic surgery from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Recall details, including reason for recall, class of recall, and the recalling company, were recorded. The data were quantified and analyzed in Excel.

RESULTS

The results of this study showed that orthopedic device recalls constitute a significant percentage of total medical device recalls, ranging from 11.8% to 21.5%. In the last 5 years, 2018 was the busiest year for all medical and orthopedic device recalls. Packaging errors were the most common reasons for orthopedic device recalls, followed by design flaws and manufacturing issues. Marketing and software issues were uncommon reasons for orthopedic device recalls. Zimmer Biomet, Johnson & Johnson (parent company of DePuy Synthes), and Stryker had the highest number of orthopedic device recalls over the last 5 years and also constitute the top 3 orthopedic companies with the largest market share of orthopedic implants.

CONCLUSION

Orthopedic device recalls remain a significant concern and constitute, on average, 16.6% of all class II medical device recalls from 2015 to 2019. Manufacturing companies can reduce the number of orthopedic device recalls by improving their device design, manufacturing, and packaging stages of the production cycle.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

How to proceed with asymptomatic modular dual taper hip stems in the case of acetabular revision

How to proceed with a clinically asymptomatic modular Metha® Ti alloy stem with dual taper CoCr neck adapter in case of acetabular revision? To systematically answer this question the status of research and appropriate diagnostic methods in context to clinically symptomatic and asymptomatic dual taper stem-neck couplings has been evaluated based on a systematic literature review. A retrieval analysis of thirteen Metha® modular dual taper CoCr/Ti alloy hip stems has been performed and a rational decision making model as basis for a clinical recommendation was developed. From our observations we propose that in cases of acetabular revision, that for patients with a serum cobalt level of > 4 µg/L and a Co/Cr ratio > 3.6, the revision of the modular dual taper stem may be considered. Prior to acetabular revision surgery a systematic diagnostic evaluation should be executed, using specific tests such as serum metal (Co, Cr) ion analysis, plain antero-posterior and lateral radiographs and cross-sectional imaging modalities (Metal Artefact Reduction Sequence Magnetic Resonance Imaging). For an asymptomatic Metha® dual taper Ti alloy/CoCr stem-neck coupling at the stage of acetabular revision careful clinical decision making according to the proposed model should be followed and overreliance on any single examination should be avoided, considering the complete individual differential diagnosis and patient situation.

Dual-Mobility vs Fixed-Bearing Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Under 55 Years of Age: A Single-Institution, Matched-Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic dislocation of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common cause for revision surgery. Dual-mobility (DM) bearings were introduced to mitigate complications; however, their performance in younger patients is unknown. This study compared results of patients <55 years of age with DM vs fixed-bearing (FB) primary THA.

METHODS

Our total joint registry was used to evaluate primary THA patients <55 years of age, and then, an age-matched comparative analysis was performed for 136 THAs using third-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene DM bearings and 136 THAs using FB from the same manufacturer with mean follow-up of 3.2 and 3.4 years, respectively. Mean age at surgery was 48.4 and 48.5 years, respectively. There was no difference in gender distribution. Incidence of complications (eg, dislocation) was evaluated and compared statistically. Patient-reported outcomes using the Modified Harris Hip Score were available. Normally distributed continuous data were compared using the Student t test, and discrete data were compared using the Fisher exact test (P < .05).

RESULTS

There were no dislocations or intraprosthetic dissociations (0%) in the DM group and 7 (5.1%) dislocations in the FB group (P = .01) at the mean follow-up of 3 years postoperatively. Two of the 7 unstable patients in the FB cohort were revised for recurrent instability (1.5%). There was no difference in postoperative Modified Harris Hip Score between the DM (87.2 ± 16.6) and the control cohorts (87.9 ± 13.7; P = .78).

CONCLUSION

DM bearings in patients <55 years of age show excellent results for prosthetic stability when compared with patients who undergo FB.