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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Informa Healthcare
2015
|
Materias: | |
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 |