Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Does Equally Well in Osteonecrosis and Osteoarthritis

Dastane, Manish; Long, William T.; Wan, Zhinian; Chao, Lisa; Dorr, Lawrence D.

doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0180-0

Cited by 33 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the past decade, various studies have reported outcomes and survival of alternative bearing surfaces in THA [6,7,9,12,14,15,19,20,[23][24][25]. Complications associated with the use of hard-on-hard bearings include squeaking, fracture, liner disassociation, metallosis, and hypersensitivity reactions occurring in some patients [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our analysis, the most common reason for revision THA was not bearing related, which was consistent with the previous studies reporting outcomes of COC THA. A review of recent literature reporting outcome of MOM THA demonstrated an overall survival rate between 93% and 99% [6,23] (Table 3). The failure rate of MOM THA in our cohort (5%) was similar to these previous reports.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Causes of Failure of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties

Porat

Parvızı

Sharkey

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Few large series of hard bearing surfaces have reported on reasons for early failure. A number of unique mechanisms of failure, including fracture, squeaking, and adverse tissue reactions, have been reported with these hard bearing surfaces. However, the incidence varies among the published studies. Questions/purposes To confirm the incidences, we identified the etiologies of early failures of hard-on-hard bearing surfaces for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-onmetal THAs. Methods We retrospectively reviewed records of 2907 THAs with hard-on-hard bearing surfaces implanted between 1996 and 2009; 1697 (58%) had ceramic-onceramic and 1210 (42%) had metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. We recorded bearing-related complications and compared them to nonspecific reasons for revision THA. The minimum followup of the ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal cohorts was 6 months (mean, 48 months; range, 6-97 months) and 24 months (mean, 60 months; range, 24-178 months), respectively. Results The overall revision rate for ceramic-on-ceramic THA was 2.2% (38 of 1697), with aseptic loosening accounting for 55% of revisions (femur or acetabulum). The bearing accounted for 13% of the revisions in the ceramic-on-ceramic THA cohort. The overall metal-onmetal revision rate was 5.4% (65 of 1210), 17 involving adverse tissue reactions related to the metal-on-metal bearing surface (17 of 1210, 1.4% of cases; 17 of 65, 26% of revisions). Conclusions Twenty-six percent of the revisions from metal-on-metal and 13% of ceramic-on ceramic were bearing related. The overall short-to medium-term revision rate was 2.2% and 5.4% for ceramic-on-ceramic and metalon-metal, respectively. The most common etiology of failure was loosening of the femoral or acetabular components.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes of Failure of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties

Porat

Parvızı

Sharkey

et al. 2012

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, plasma spray provides good early stability as a result of its high frictional interface with the adjacent bone and its closed-pore structure prevents particulate debris migration [3,13]. The metal femoral head was the Protasul Cobalt Chrome Metasul1 alloy [5,9,12]. Head diameter was 44 to 50 mm in 164 hips, 52 to 56 mm in 33 hips, and greater than 56 mm in nine hips.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metal-on-metal articulation for THA has been one subject of research for us [5,9,12,19,23]. Our only repeatable complication with this articulation was dislocation (using 28-and 32-mm heads), so the large-diameter head was attractive [5,12,19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Failure of the Durom Metasul® Acetabular Component

Long

Dastane

Harris

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large-diameter metal-on-metal articulations reportedly provide better stability and range of motion than smaller diameter bearings. We therefore asked whether a large-diameter (44-to 50-mm) metal-on-metal articulation (Durom1) would eliminate dislocation and provide similar functional scores and clinical and radiographic failure rates as those with 28-mm articulation. We prospectively followed 181 patients (207 hips) who had a large-diameter articulation implanted between May 2006 and November 2007. We compared these patients with a historical control of 54 patients who had a small-diameter (28-mm Metasul1) articulation. All patients had a Harris hip score and a self-assessment of outcome and radiographic followup. The minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 1.6 years; range, 1-2 years). During the followup period, we performed revisions on 29 patients (30 hips [15%]) with 21 of 29 (72%) having radiographic criteria of loosening. Thirteen retrieved cups and acetabular tissue were examined histologically. Twenty-eight of 151 unrevised patients had radiographic impending failure; 12 without revision had clinical failure. Eight patients (nine hips) had both clinical failure and impending radiographic failure. Cup inclination was 41.3°± 5.4°and anteversion was 20.2°± 7°. The revision rate and quality of clinical results were unacceptable as compared with our historical controls. We do not recommend use of the Durom1 implant.

show abstract

“…Most of the included articles were of Level IV evidence. In the MoM group, there were only two reports with Level I to II evidence [86,87] and one report with Level III evidence [18]. In the ceramic-on-ceramic group, there were two reports with Level I evidence [16,53], one report with Level II evidence [50], and two reports with Level III evidence [19,69] (Tables 1 and 2).…”

Section: Search Strategy and Criteriamentioning

confidence: 96%

How Have Alternative Bearings and Modularity Affected Revision Rates in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Mihalko

Wimmer

Pacione

et al. 2014

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to be one of the most successful surgical procedures in the medical field. However, over the last two decades, the use of modularity and alternative bearings in THA has become routine. Given the known problems associated with hardon-hard bearing couples, including taper failures with more modular stem designs, local and systemic effects from metal-on-metal bearings, and fractures with ceramic-onceramic bearings, it is not known whether in aggregate the survivorship of these implants is better or worse than the metal-on-polyethylene bearings that they sought to replace. Questions/purposes Have alternative bearings (metal-onmetal and ceramic-on-ceramic) and implant modularity decreased revision rates of primary THAs?Methods In this systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, we used several Boolean search strings for each topic and surveyed national registry data from Englishspeaking countries. Clinical research (Level IV or higher) with C 5 years of followup was included; retrieval studies and case reports were excluded. We included registry data at C 7 years followup. A total of 32 studies (and five registry reports) on metal-on-metal, 19 studies (and five registry reports) on ceramic-on-ceramic, and 20 studies (and one registry report) on modular stem designs met inclusion criteria and were evaluated in detail. Insufficient data were available on metal-on-ceramic and ceramic-onmetal implants, and monoblock acetabular designs were evaluated in another recent systematic review so these were not evaluated here.One of the authors (WMM) receives royalty payments, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from B Braun/Aesculap Inc (Center Valley, PA, USA) and less than USD 10,000 from Elsevier Inc (Philadelphia, PA, USA); receives USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 as a consultant for B Braun/Aesculap Inc and less than USD 10,000 from Medtronic Inc (Memphis, TN, USA); receives research funding, during the study period, an amount of less than USD 10,000 from B Braun/Aesculap Inc and less than USD 10,000 Stryker Inc (Mahwah, NJ, USA); and serves on the editorial boards for the Journal of Arthroplasty, The Knee, the International Journal of Orthopaedics, and The Journal of Long Term Effects of Medical Implants. One of the authors (MAW) receives institutional funding in the amount of less than USD 10,000 from Biomet, Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA), USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from CeramTec GmbH (Lauf, Germany), and material support from Zimmer Inc (Warsaw, Inc, USA) and B Braun/Aesculap AG. He is an unpaid consultant for Endolab GmbH and a paid consultant receiving an amount of less than USD 10,000 from Irwing Fritche Urquhart & Moore LLC (New Orleans, LA, USA). One of the authors (MPL) owns Zimmer Holdings, Inc stock but received no payments during the study period. Results There was no evidence in the literature that alternative bearings (either metal-on-metal or ceramic-onceramic) in THA have decreased revision rates. Registry data, however, showed that large he...

show abstract

Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Does Equally Well in Osteonecrosis and Osteoarthritis

Cited by 33 publications

References 33 publications

Causes of Failure of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties

Causes of Failure of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasties

Failure of the Durom Metasul® Acetabular Component

How Have Alternative Bearings and Modularity Affected Revision Rates in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About