Revision of Metal-on-metal Hip Replacements with Dual-mobility Bearings and Acetabular Component Retention

Overview

Journal Bone Jt Open

Date 2024 Jun 24

PMID 38910515

Authors

William Fishley

Rajpal Nandra

Ian Carluke

Paul F Partington

Mike R Reed

Derek J Kramer

Matthew J Wilson

Matthew J W Hubble

Jonathan R Howell

Sarah L Whitehouse

Timothy G Petheram

Al-Amin M Kassam

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Aims: In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component.

Methods: Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years).

Results: In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)).

Conclusion: In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications.

Citing Articles

Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Based on Clinical Aspects and Retrieval Analysis of Failed Prosthesis.

Antoniac I, Valeanu N, Niculescu M, Antoniac A, Robu A, Popescu L Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(16).

PMID: 39203142 PMC: 11355717. DOI: 10.3390/ma17163965.

References

Chang J, Haddad F . Revision total hip arthroplasty for metal-on-metal failure. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020; 11(1):9-15. PMC: 6985013. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.09.021. View

Rouzrokh P, Wyles C, Philbrick K, Ramazanian T, Weston A, Cai J . A Deep Learning Tool for Automated Radiographic Measurement of Acetabular Component Inclination and Version After Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36(7):2510-2517.e6. PMC: 8197739. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.026. View

Matharu G, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray D . Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(8):1020-1027. PMC: 5637051. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-0889.R1. View

Jameson S, Baker P, Mason J, Porter M, Deehan D, Reed M . Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(6):746-54. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.29239. View

Engh Jr C, Ho H, Padgett D . The surgical options and clinical evidence for treatment of wear or corrosion occurring with THA or TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(12):3674-86. PMC: 4397757. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3652-4. View

Plummer D, Botero H, Berend K, Pritchett J, Lombardi A, Della Valle C . Salvage of Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Acetabular Components Using a Dual-Mobility Bearing. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 31(4):846-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.08.016. View

Affatato S, Castiello E, Amendola L, Comitini S, Prudhon J, Tigani D . Revision of a Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Cup Using a Dual Mobility Component: Is It a Reasonable Option?. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(9). PMC: 7254332. DOI: 10.3390/ma13092040. View

Klemt C, Smith E, Oganesyan R, Limmahakhun S, Fitz D, Kwon Y . Outcome of Dual Mobility Constructs for Adverse Local Tissue Reaction Associated Abductor Deficiency in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35(12):3686-3691. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.043. View

Blevins J, Shen T, Morgenstern R, DeNova T, Su E . Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(9):2037-2044. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.065. View

10.

Murray D, Britton A, Bulstrode C . Loss to follow-up matters. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997; 79(2):254-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.79b2.6975. View

11.

Darrith B, Courtney P, Della Valle C . Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B(1):11-19. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B1.BJJ-2017-0462.R1. View

12.

Salmons H, Fruth K, Lewallen D, Trousdale R, Berry D, Abdel M . Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37(12):2399-2405. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.06.013. View

13.

Reina N, Pareek A, Krych A, Pagnano M, Berry D, Abdel M . Dual-Mobility Constructs in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 34(3):594-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.020. View

14.

Smith A, Dieppe P, Howard P, Blom A . Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2012; 380(9855):1759-66. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60989-1. View

15.

Assi C, Mansour J, Prudhon J, Caton J, Yammine K . Dual-mobility cups could yield lesser infections than conventional cups: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2020; 45(8):1961-1969. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-020-04791-8. View

16.

Lettin A, Ware H, Morris R . Survivorship analysis and confidence intervals. An assessment with reference to the Stanmore total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(5):729-31. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B5.1894659. View

17.

Ranawat C, Rao R, Rodriguez J, Bhende H . Correction of limb-length inequality during total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(6):715-20. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.24442. View

18.

Matharu G, Pynsent P, Dunlop D . Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes. Hip Int. 2014; 24(4):311-20. DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000140. View

19.

Colacchio N, Wooten C, Martin J, Masonis J, Fehring T . Dual Mobility for Monoblock Metal-on-Metal Revision-Is It Safe?. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 35(2):508-512. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.09.028. View