We report 17 patients (20 hips) in whom metal-on-metal resurfacing had been performed and who presented with various symptoms and a soft-tissue mass which we termed a pseudotumour. Each patient underwent plain radiography and in some, CT, MRI and ultrasonography were also performed. In addition, histological examination of available samples was undertaken. All the patients were women and their presentation was variable. The most common symptom was discomfort in the region of the hip. Other symptoms included spontaneous dislocation, nerve palsy, a noticeable mass or a rash. The common histological features were extensive necrosis and lymphocytic infiltration. To date, 13 of the 20 hips have required revision to a conventional hip replacement. Two are awaiting revision. We estimate that approximately 1% of patients who have a metal-on-metal resurfacing develop a pseudotumour within five years. The cause is unknown and is probably multifactorial. There may be a toxic reaction to an excess of particulate metal wear debris or a hypersensitivity reaction to a normal amount of metal debris. We are concerned that with time the incidence of these pseudotumours may increase. Further investigation is required to define their cause.

Inflammatory pseudotumours occasionally occur after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and often lead to revision. Our aim was to determine the severity of this complication by assessing the outcome of revision in these circumstances and by comparing this with the outcome of other metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revisions as well as that of matched primary total hip replacements. We identified 53 hips which had undergone metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and required revision at a mean of 1.59 years (0.01 to 6.69) after operation. Of these, 16 were revised for pseudotumours, 21 for fracture and 16 for other reasons. These were matched by age, gender and diagnosis with 103 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement with the Exeter implant. At a mean follow-up of three years (0.8 to 7.2) the outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision for pseudotumour was poor with a mean Oxford hip score of 20.9 (sd 9.3) and was significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome for fracture with a mean Oxford hip score of 40.2 (sd 9.2) or that for other causes with a mean Oxford hip score of 37.8 (sd 9.4). The clinical outcome of revision for pseudotumour was also significantly worse (p < 0.001) than the outcome of matched primary total hip replacements. By contrast, the outcome for fracture and other causes was not significantly different from that of matched primary total hip replacements (p = 0.065). After revision for pseudotumour there were three cases of recurrent dislocation, three of palsy of the femoral nerve, one of stenosis of the femoral artery and two of loosening of the component. Five hips required further revision. In three of these there was evidence of recurrent pseudotumour, and one is currently awaiting further revision. The incidence of major complications after revision for pseudotumour (50%) was significantly higher (p = 0.018) than that after revision for other causes (14%). The outcome of revision for pseudotumour is poor and consideration should be given to early revision to limit the extent of the soft-tissue destruction. The outcome of resurfacing revision for other causes is good.

A prospective study was performed to establish criteria for the microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection at elective revision arthroplasty. Patients were treated in a multidisciplinary unit dedicated to the management and study of musculoskeletal infection. Standard multiple samples of periprosthetic tissue were obtained at surgery, Gram stained, and cultured by direct and enrichment methods. With reference to histology as the criterion standard, sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated by using different cutoffs for the diagnosis of infection. We performed revisions on 334 patients over a 17-month period, of whom 297 were evaluable. The remaining 37 were excluded because histology results were unavailable or could not be interpreted due to underlying inflammatory joint disease. There were 41 infections, with only 65% of all samples sent from infected patients being culture positive, suggesting low numbers of bacteria in the samples taken. The isolation of an indistinguishable microorganism from three or more independent specimens was highly predictive of infection (sensitivity, 65%; specificity, 99.6%; LR, 168.6), while Gram staining was less useful (sensitivity, 12%; specificity, 98%; LR, 10). A simple mathematical model was developed to predict the performance of the diagnostic test. We recommend that five or six specimens be sent, that the cutoff for a definite diagnosis of infection be three or more operative specimens that yield an indistinguishable organism, and that because of its low level of sensitivity, Gram staining should be abandoned as a diagnostic tool at elective revision arthroplasty.

No abstract