Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m². Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years).

RESULTS

The 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24).

CONCLUSION

Revision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

What are the results of revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties?

Aims

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is typically indicated for young and active patients. Due to the longevity of arthroplasty, these patients are likely to undergo revision surgery during their lifetime. There is a paucity of information on the long-term outcome of revision surgeries performed after failed HRA. The aim of our study was to provide survivorship data as well as clinical scores after HRA revisions.

Methods

A total of 42 patients (43 hips) were revised after HRA at our centre to a variety of devices, including four HRA and 39 total hip arthroplasties (THAs). In addition to perioperative complications, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hip scores and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12) quality of life scores were collected at follow-up visits after the primary HRA and after revision surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up time after revision surgery was 8.3 years (0.3 to 19.1). The mean UCLA pain and function scores post-revision were comparable with the best scores achieved by the patients after the index HRA, but UCLA activity scores were lower after revision. SF-12 physical component scores were comparable between timepoints, but the mental component score decreased after revision. Six patients underwent unilateral re-revision surgery at a mean follow-up time of 7.8 years (0.3 to 13.7). Using the time to any re-revision as endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 85.3% at 13 years.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing revision after HRA can expect to achieve function and quality of life similar to their best after their primary surgery, while the risk of re-revision is low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1289–1296.

Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris

Background and purpose - There is limited amount of evidence about optimal revision indications, technique, and implants when performing revision surgery for metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed which factors are related to re-revisions and complications after a revision of MoM hip arthroplasty because of ARMD. We also aimed to provide information on optimal implants for these revisions.Patients and methods - 420 MoM total hip arthroplasties (THA) and 108 MoM hip resurfacings were implanted and later revised at our institution. We used Cox regression to analyze the factors associated with re-revisions and complications after a revision for ARMD.Results - A re-revision was performed on 27 THAs (6%) and 9 resurfacings (8%). The most common indication for re-revision was recurrent dislocation (20 hips, 4%). Complications not leading to re-revision were seen in 21 THAs (5%) and 6 resurfacings (6%). The most common complication was dislocation treated with closed reduction in 13 hips (2%). Use of revision head size > 36mm was associated with decreased risk for dislocations. Presence of pseudotumor, pseudotumor grade, pseudotumor size, or the choice of bearing couple were not observed to affect the risk for re-revision. Non-linear association was observed between preoperative cobalt and risk for re-revision.Interpretation - As dislocation was the most frequent post-revision complication, large head sizes should be used in revisions. Because size or type of pseudotumor were not associated with risk of re-revision, clinicians may have to reconsider, how much weight is put on the imaging findings when deciding whether or not to revise. In our data blood cobalt was associated with risk for re-revision, but this finding needs further assessment.

Superior patient reported outcome measures reported post Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) revision arthroplasty in the setting of an objective surgical indication

The Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip system displayed unexpectedly high failure rates. All patients who underwent revision arthroplasty at our institution were identified. Indications for revision were classified as objectively identifiable or performed for unexplained pain. Clinical outcomes, post ASR revision, were superior in cases where the aetiology for failure was identifiable. Pain and function improved reliably when a targeted objective indication was identified pre-revision, but failed to do so in cases of unexplained pain. Surgeons familiar with the results of this study will be empowered to discuss expectations and realistic outcomes with their patients undergoing complex revision arthroplasty cases.

Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components

BACKGROUND

Retention of the acetabular component is an option during conversion from hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of conversion of the femoral resurfacing component with retained acetabular components (RAC) and use of dual-mobility femoral heads to outcomes of patients treated with both component (BC) revisions.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of the clinical outcomes of HRA to THA conversions performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2017.

RESULTS

Seventy-one conversions were included (27 RAC and 44 BC). Average age at time of conversion was 54.4 years (range, 30-68 years). Median time to conversion was 5.14 (2.77-7.41) years and median follow-up post-conversion was 1.7 (0.33-4.0) years. There were no significant differences in indications for conversion between the 2 groups with the majority performed for complications related to elevated metal ions and aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores improved from pre-conversion to post-conversion in both cohorts (P < .01). There were no significant differences in pre-conversion and post-conversion metal ion levels between the RAC and BC groups. Serum metal ion levels decreased significantly in both cohorts (P < .01). There were 6 additional revisions in the cohort (4 in BC, 2 in RAC) at a median 2.94 (1.99-3.85) years post-conversion. Two RAC patients had intraprosthetic dislocations with extensive polyethylene wear requiring acetabular revision at median 3.92 (3.85-3.98) years post-conversion. Overall, there were a higher number of complications in the BC group related to acetabular fracture, failure of osseointegration, and periprosthetic joint infection; however, this did not reach statistical significance (P = .27).

CONCLUSION

Salvage of an appropriately positioned, well-fixed HRA acetabular component is a reasonable option in the setting of conversion to THA using dual-mobility components. This technique avoids the morbidity of acetabular revision and was associated with a decrease in metal ion levels and improvements in short-term functional outcomes comparable to a BC revision.

The mean ten-year results of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Aims

This study presents the long-term survivorship, risk factors for prosthesis survival, and an assessment of the long-term effects of changes in surgical technique in a large series of patients treated by metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Patients and Methods

Between November 1996 and January 2012, 1074 patients (1321 hips) underwent HRA using the Conserve Plus Hip Resurfacing System. There were 787 men (73%) and 287 women (27%) with a mean age of 51 years (14 to 83). The underlying pathology was osteoarthritis (OA) in 1003 (75.9%), developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in 136 (10.3%), avascular necrosis in 98 (7.4%), and other conditions, including inflammatory arthritis, in 84 (6.4%).

Results

The mean follow-up time was 10.5 years (1 to 20). Using revision for any reason as the endpoint, the overall survivorship at 15 years was 89.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.8 to 91.4). There was a substantial increase between the first and second generation of surgical technique (86.6% vs 90.1%; p = 0.05). Men with idiopathic OA had a 15-year survivorship of 94.5% and women, 82.2% (p = 0.001); gender was not a risk factor after stratification by component size and aetiology. Using revision for excessive wear (ion levels > 7 µg/l associated with symptoms or adverse local tissue reactions) as the endpoint, the 15-year survivorship was 98.5%. Risk factors for revision for all modes of failure were an underlying pathology of hip dysplasia, a contact patch to rim (CPR) distance of 7 mm or less, an age at surgery of 55 years or less, and a femoral component size of 46 mm or less. Specific risk factors for aseptic failure of the femoral component were early surgical technique, a cementless metaphyseal stem, and a body mass index of 24 kg/m2 or less.

Conclusion

HRA is a viable concept; metal-on-metal bearings are well suited for this procedure when a well-designed device is properly implanted. The best results were obtained in men with OA, but survivorship was better for other underlying pathologies and for women after changes were made to the technique of implantation. Lifetime durability is a possible outcome for many patients despite a high level of activity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1424–33.

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris

Background and purpose - The initial outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) were poor. Furthermore, robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision are lacking. This article is the second of 2. The first article considered the various investigative modalities used during MoMHA patient surveillance (Matharu et al. 2018a ). The present article aims to provide a clinical update regarding ARMD revision surgery in MoMHA patients (hip resurfacing and large-diameter MoM total hip arthroplasty), with specific focus on the threshold for performing ARMD revision, the surgical strategy, and the outcomes following revision. Results and interpretation - The outcomes following ARMD revision surgery appear to have improved with time for several reasons, among them the introduction of regular patient surveillance and lowering of the threshold for performing revision. Furthermore, registry data suggest that outcomes following ARMD revision are influenced by modifiable factors (type of revision procedure and bearing surface implanted), meaning surgeons could potentially reduce failure rates. However, additional large multi-center studies are needed to develop robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision surgery, which will guide surgeons' treatment of MoMHA patients. The long-term systemic effects of metal ion exposure in patients with these implants must also be investigated, which will help establish whether there are any systemic reasons to recommend revision of MoMHAs.

Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision

BACKGROUND

High short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes?

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7-15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures.

RESULTS

Overall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%-74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%-76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%-85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%-81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2-46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2-7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1-29; p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty with Well Fixed and Positioned Acetabular Component Using a Dual-mobility Head and Review of Literature

Background:

As a consequence of use of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties some patients have precised revision for pain or metal hipersensivity reactions among other causes. We propose to salvage monoblock acetabular component and femoral component using a dual-mobility head and perform a lower morbidity operation in young patients preserving host bone stock in cases with well fixed and positioned components.

Objective:

(1) What clinical problems have been reported in patients with Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties? (2) Could the tribocorrosion potentially cause a fracture of neck femoral component? (3) Can be the dual-mobility head a recourse in metal-on-metal hip revision?

Methods:

Ten patients were revised for pain or/and raised Cobalt/Chromium levels between August 2012 and December 2015. In three cases femoral neck component was fractured and femoral revision was necessary. In four hips, acetabular and femoral components could be maintained. Age, body index mass, ion levels, acetabular position, size of acetabular component and femoral head, approach, blood transfunsion and time of hospitalization were analized.

Results:

At a mean follow-up of 25,6 months (6 to 45) the mean postoperative HHS was 92. It was not statistically significant because several patients were low sintomatic before surgery, but had raised Cobalt/Chromium levels in the blood. All patients had near-normal levels of Cobalt/Chromium during the first 6 months after revision surgery. No relevant complications were reported.

Conclusion:

The use of dual-mobility head can be an acceptable option to revise metal-on-metal arthroplasties correctly oriented with abscence of loosening or infection signs and keeping bone stock in young patients.

Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls

Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) remains a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in appropriately selected, active adults with degenerative hip disease. However, orthopedic surgeons are facing a number of scenarios where revision of one or both components of an SRA is indicated. Indications for revision vary and impact the potential outcomes of conversion of a SRA to THA. While clinical outcomes are generally favorable, a growing body of data illustrates patients who undergo conversion of a SRA to THA to be at increased risk of requiring a repeat revision surgery and experiencing functional outcomes inferior to that of a primary THA. The results of patients undergoing conversion of a SRA to THA highlight the need for careful patient selection, thorough preoperative counseling, and technical precision when performing a SRA. Furthermore, a systematic approach to the failed SRA is necessary to ensure optimal clinical results.

Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Prostheses Results in Marked Reduction of Blood Cobalt and Chromium Ion Concentrations

BACKGROUND

High revision rates attributable to adverse reactions to metal debris have been reported for total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with metal-on-metal implants and hip resurfacings. The effect of revision on blood metal ion levels is described only in small series, the clinical results of revisions have been contradictory, and concerns regarding component loosening have been presented.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Did revision surgery result in a reduction to normal for whole blood cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels (2) What changes to the Oxford Hip Score were observed after revision of these hips with metal-on-metal implants? (3) Were there radiologic signs of component loosening observed on 1-year followup radiographs?

METHODS

Between September 2010 and April 2013, 154 patients (166 hips) who had THAs with implantation of the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) system and 44 patients (49 hips) who had hip resurfacings of the ASR™ implant underwent revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris at our institution, after recall of these components in August 2010. General indications for revision of these implants included a symptomatic hip and/or a predominantly solid pseudotumor seen on cross-sectional imaging. Since recall, patients were systematically followed after revision with Oxford Hip Score questionnaires, blood Co and Cr measurements (analyzed from whole blood with dynamic reaction-cell inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry), and plain radiographs at 2 and 12 months after revision surgery, and thereafter at 2-year intervals. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative blood Co and Cr values were available for 93% (185 of 198 patients), Oxford Hip Score for 76% (151 of 198 patients), and plain radiographs for all patients.

RESULTS

Whole-blood levels of Co decreased below the 7 ppb cut-off value in all patients with revision of unilateral THA or resurfacing, however, blood Cr levels remained elevated in four of 90 patients (4%) in the unilateral THA group and four of 34 patients (12%) in the unilateral resurfacing group. All had ultrahigh (> 40 ppb) preoperative Cr levels. Cr levels remained elevated in six of the patients at the 3-year followup. The median Oxford Hip Score improved from preoperative to 1-year postoperative in the unilateral THA group (38 [4-48] to 40 [9-48], p = 0.049) and in the unilateral hip resurfacing group (37.5 [9-48] to 44 [13-48], p = 0.011). No improvement was seen in patients who had bilateral THAs (37 [14-48] to 41 [9-48], p = 0.196). Only minor radiographic abnormalities were seen, with no suspicion of component loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal-on-metal THAs and resurfacings have raised concerns and an emerging rate of revisions has been seen for many different metal-on-metal hip prostheses worldwide. Revision surgery seems to be effective for removal of the systemic metal ion burden, even though blood Cr remained elevated in a few patients for more than 3 years after removal of the metal-on-metal implant. In patients with bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacements the remaining metal-on-metal implant still supplies the body with Co and Cr ions after a unilateral revision, and therefore followup should be continued. Adverse reactions to metal debris do not seem to compromise implant ingrowth after revision surgery. However, as some of our patients still had a poor functional outcome at 12 months after revision surgery, additional research is warranted to determine the optimal time for patients to undergo revision surgery for suspected adverse reactions to metal debris.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.