Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the Current Literature

Metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty has been widely used since the end of the 20(th) century, although rates have now decreased due to concerns regarding adverse reactions and failure rates. The MoM implant has been replaced with other materials, such as ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP). This literature review looks at the past and present use of MoM prostheses to assess whether the turn away from MoM use is justified. Online literature searches were performed on PubMed, Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and Web of Science online databases using the search terms “MoM and (ARMD and ALVAL)” (ARMD: adverse reaction to metal debris; ALVAL: aseptic lymphocyte-dominant vasculitis-associated lesion). A total of 64 relevant titles were included in the review. Although risk factors for adverse reactions and the causes of ARMD are generally agreed upon, more work is required to further understand the specific thresholds of blood metal ion levels that can be used to consistently identify ARMD and excessive metal wear-debris in patients who have not had their MoM implants revised. Metal-on-metal devices are not an acceptable option for total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in their current formulation due to the high rate and risk of ARMD. Some MoM hip resurfacing operations are appropriate for very carefully selected patients who are fully aware of the risks posed by the implant. It is recommended that device-specific thresholds for metal ion levels be developed to identify patients at risk of ARMD locally and systemically while using auxiliary tools to assist diagnosis, such as metal artefact reduction sequences (MARS)-MRI and hip scoring tools. Further work should investigate device-specific blood metal ion levels, the systemic effects of raised metal ion concentrations secondary to MoM arthroprosthetic wear, and the potential risks of ARMD caused by wear from tapered stems (including the implications this has for patients with CoC and MoP prostheses).