Cargando…

Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Concern has emerged about local soft-tissue reactions after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARM...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Junnila, Mika, Seppänen, Matti, Mokka, Jari, Virolainen, Petri, Pölönen, Tuukka, Vahlberg, Tero, Mattila, Kimmo, Tuominen, Esa K J, Rantakokko, Juho, Äärimaa, Ville, Itälä, Ari, Mäkelä, Keijo T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2015
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25582189
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.1004015
_version_ 1782372992168230912
author Junnila, Mika
Seppänen, Matti
Mokka, Jari
Virolainen, Petri
Pölönen, Tuukka
Vahlberg, Tero
Mattila, Kimmo
Tuominen, Esa K J
Rantakokko, Juho
Äärimaa, Ville
Itälä, Ari
Mäkelä, Keijo T
author_facet Junnila, Mika
Seppänen, Matti
Mokka, Jari
Virolainen, Petri
Pölönen, Tuukka
Vahlberg, Tero
Mattila, Kimmo
Tuominen, Esa K J
Rantakokko, Juho
Äärimaa, Ville
Itälä, Ari
Mäkelä, Keijo T
author_sort Junnila, Mika
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Concern has emerged about local soft-tissue reactions after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) with this device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2003 to 2011, BHR was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution, with 249 implantations. We included 32 patients (24 of them men) who were operated with a BHR HRA during the period April 2004 to March 2007 (42 hips; 31 in men). The mean age of the patients was 59 (26–77) years. These patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), serum metal ion measurements, the Oxford hip score questionnaire, and physical examination. The prevalence of ARMD was recorded, and risk factors for ARMD were assessed using logistic regression models. The mean follow-up time was 6.7 (2.4–8.8) years. RESULTS: 6 patients had a definite ARMD (involving 9 of the 42 hips). 8 other patients (8 hips) had a probable ARMD. Thus, there was definite or probable ARMD in 17 of the 42 hips. 4 of 42 hips were revised for ARMD. Gender, bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacement and head size were not factors associated with ARMD. INTERPRETATION: We found that HRA with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing may be more dangerous than previously believed. We advise systematic follow-up of these patients using metal ion levels, MRI/ultrasound, and patient-reported outcome measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4443460
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44434602015-06-08 Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty Junnila, Mika Seppänen, Matti Mokka, Jari Virolainen, Petri Pölönen, Tuukka Vahlberg, Tero Mattila, Kimmo Tuominen, Esa K J Rantakokko, Juho Äärimaa, Ville Itälä, Ari Mäkelä, Keijo T Acta Orthop Hip BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Concern has emerged about local soft-tissue reactions after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) with this device. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2003 to 2011, BHR was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution, with 249 implantations. We included 32 patients (24 of them men) who were operated with a BHR HRA during the period April 2004 to March 2007 (42 hips; 31 in men). The mean age of the patients was 59 (26–77) years. These patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), serum metal ion measurements, the Oxford hip score questionnaire, and physical examination. The prevalence of ARMD was recorded, and risk factors for ARMD were assessed using logistic regression models. The mean follow-up time was 6.7 (2.4–8.8) years. RESULTS: 6 patients had a definite ARMD (involving 9 of the 42 hips). 8 other patients (8 hips) had a probable ARMD. Thus, there was definite or probable ARMD in 17 of the 42 hips. 4 of 42 hips were revised for ARMD. Gender, bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacement and head size were not factors associated with ARMD. INTERPRETATION: We found that HRA with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing may be more dangerous than previously believed. We advise systematic follow-up of these patients using metal ion levels, MRI/ultrasound, and patient-reported outcome measures. Informa Healthcare 2015-06 2015-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4443460/ /pubmed/25582189 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.1004015 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 License which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is credited.
spellingShingle Hip
Junnila, Mika
Seppänen, Matti
Mokka, Jari
Virolainen, Petri
Pölönen, Tuukka
Vahlberg, Tero
Mattila, Kimmo
Tuominen, Esa K J
Rantakokko, Juho
Äärimaa, Ville
Itälä, Ari
Mäkelä, Keijo T
Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title_full Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title_fullStr Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title_short Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
title_sort adverse reaction to metal debris after birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443460/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25582189
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.1004015
work_keys_str_mv AT junnilamika adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT seppanenmatti adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT mokkajari adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT virolainenpetri adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT polonentuukka adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT vahlbergtero adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT mattilakimmo adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT tuominenesakj adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT rantakokkojuho adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT aarimaaville adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT italaari adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty
AT makelakeijot adversereactiontometaldebrisafterbirminghamhipresurfacingarthroplasty