scholarly journals 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

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (8) ◽  
pp. 617-626 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulraj S. Matharu ◽  
Fiona Berryman ◽  
Lesley Brash ◽  
Paul B. Pynsent ◽  
Ronan B.C. Treacy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Metal Ions ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Hip Implants ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Blood Metal Ion Thresholds to Identify Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris

2017 ◽  
Vol 99A (18) ◽  
pp. 1532-1539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gulraj S. Matharu ◽  
Fiona Berryman ◽  
Andrew Judge ◽  
Aleksi Reito ◽  
Jamie McConnell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Metal Ion ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Hip Implants ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals How much does a medical and healthcare products regulatory agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002098329
Author(s):  
Rajpal S Nandra ◽  
Usman Ahmed ◽  
Fiona Berryman ◽  
Lesley Brash ◽  
David J Dunlop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Asymptomatic Case

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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Can blood metal ion levels be used to identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacings who are at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris?

2016 ◽  
Vol 98-B (11) ◽  
pp. 1455-1462 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. S. Matharu ◽  
F. Berryman ◽  
L. Brash ◽  
P. B. Pynsent ◽  
D. J. Dunlop ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Metal Ion ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Metal Debris

A Clinicopathological Study of Metal-on-Metal Hips Revised for Suspected Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris

2013 ◽  
pp. 53-66
Author(s):  
Gulraj S. Matharu ◽  
Matthew P. Revell ◽  
Vaiyapuri Sumathi ◽  
Paul B. Pynsent ◽  
Peter A. Revell
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Clinicopathological Study ◽  
Suspected Adverse Reactions

A Case Series of 35 Hip Revisions for Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris following Cormet Hip Resurfacing

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 575-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rory J. Norris ◽  
John McArthur ◽  
Helen Parsons ◽  
Nicholas A. Smith ◽  
Andrew P. Sprowson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Metal Debris

scholarly journals Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mika Junnila ◽  
Matti Seppänen ◽  
Jari Mokka ◽  
Petri Virolainen ◽  
Tuukka Pölönen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Reaction ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Resurfacing Arthroplasty ◽  
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document