The Effectiveness of Blood Metal Ions in Identifying Patients with Unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris

Background: Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in “at-risk” Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall. Methods: All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data. Results: The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76–£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case. Conclusions: Implementing MHRA surveillance for “at-risk” BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients.

Download Full-text

Small-head metal on metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high rate of complication and reoperation at mid-term follow-up

SAGE Open Medicine ◽

10.1177/20503121211014707 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 205031212110147

Author(s):

Nobuhiko Sumiyoshi ◽

Kazuhiro Oinuma ◽

Yoko Miura

Keyword(s):

Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽

Hip Arthroplasty ◽

Adverse Reactions ◽

Small Diameter ◽

High Rate ◽

Metal Debris ◽

Total Hip ◽

Metal On Metal ◽

Small Head

Background: Adverse reactions to metal debris are significant complications after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Recently, late appearances of adverse reactions to metal debris and subsequent need for reoperations have been reported with small-diameter head metal-on-metal devices. We retrospectively investigated mid-term clinical outcomes of small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Methods: We reviewed 159 hips in 139 patients who had a small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (M2a Taper; Biomet, Warsaw, IN) with a minimum 5-year follow-up and documented postoperative complications. Results: Focal osteolysis in either the femur or acetabulum was observed in 12 hips (7.5%, 44 months after surgery on average), with pseudotumor observed in 8 hips (5%, 120 months after surgery on average). Four hips (2.5%) had dislocations (84 months after surgery on average) and six hips (3.8%, 122 months after surgery on average) underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high degree of complications at mid-term follow-up period. Considering this, we discourage the use of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty regardless of head size.

Download Full-text