Search

Background: Pseudotumors are sterile inflammatory lesions found in the soft tissues surrounding metal-on-metal (MOM) and metal-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasties. In patients with MOM hip arthroplasties, pseudotumors are thought to represent an adverse reaction to metal wear debris. However, the pathogenesis of these lesions remains unclear. Currently, there is inconsistent evidence regarding the influence of adverse cup position and increased wear in the formation of pseudotumors.Questions/purposes: We therefore determined whether pseudotumor formation was associated with (1) adverse cup position, (2) raised metal ion levels, and (3) increased wear rates of the retrieved components.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all 352 patients for whom we had retrieved specimens from revisions of a current-generation MOM hip prosthesis between February 2008 and September 2010; of these, 105 met our inclusion criteria. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to compare acetabular orientation, metal ion levels before revision, and component wear rates between patients with (n = 72) and without (n = 33) pseudotumors, according to findings on metal artifact reduction sequence MRI.Results: The proportion of patients demonstrating evidence of a pseudotumor in well-positioned hips was similar to those with adverse cup positions (67% and 66%, respectively). Patients revised with pseudotumors had similar whole-blood metal ion levels and component wear rates to those who were not revised.Conclusions: Pseudotumors were not associated with increased wear or metal ion levels, suggesting patient susceptibility is likely to be more important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many papers have been published recently on the subject of pseudotumors surrounding metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and replacement prostheses. These pseudotumors are sterile, inflammatory lesions within the periprosthetic tissues and have been variously termed masses, cysts, bursae, collections, or aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL). The prevalence of pseudotumors in patients with a well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prosthesis is not well known. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of pseudotumors adjacent to well-functioning and painful metal-on-metal hip prostheses, to characterize these lesions with use of magnetic resonance imaging, and to assess the relationship between their presence and acetabular cup position with use of three-dimensional computed tomography.Methods: We performed a case-control study to compare the magnetic resonance imaging findings of patients with a well-functioning unilateral metal-on-metal hip prosthesis and patients with a painful prosthesis (defined by either revision arthroplasty performed because of unexplained pain or an Oxford hip score of <30 of 48 possible points). Thirty patients with a painful hip prosthesis and twenty-eight controls with a well-functioning prosthesis were recruited consecutively. All patients also underwent computed tomography to assess the position of the acetabular component.Results: Thirty-four patients were diagnosed with a pseudotumor. However, the prevalence of pseudotumors in patients with a painful hip (seventeen of thirty, 57%) was not significantly different from the prevalence in the control group (seventeen of twenty-eight, 61%). No objective differences in pseudotumor characteristics between the groups were identified. No clear association between the presence of a pseudotumor and acetabular component position was identified. The Oxford hip score in the group with a painful hip (mean, 20.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7 to 45.8) was poorer than that in the control group (mean, 41.2; 95% CI, 18.5 to 45.8; p ≤ 0.0001).Conclusions: A periprosthetic cystic pseudotumor was diagnosed commonly (in thirty-four [59%] of the entire study cohort) with use of metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS) magnetic resonance imaging in this series of patients with a metal-on-metal hip prosthesis. The prevalence of pseudotumors was similar in patients with a well-functioning hip prosthesis and patients with a painful hip. Pseudotumors were also diagnosed commonly in patients with a well-positioned acetabular component. Although magnetic resonance imaging is useful for surgical planning, the presence of a cystic pseudotumor may not necessarily indicate the need for revision arthroplasty. Further correlation of clinical and imaging data is needed to determine the natural history of pseudotumors to guide clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large proportion of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty failures are due to unexplained pain. The mechanism of failure has been thought to be associated with factors that increase material loss, including specific design features and surgical positioning of components. However, recent evidence suggests that there is not a simple dose-response relationship. An analysis of failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties involving a single design was performed in an attempt to help resolve this issue. Our aim was to identify the clinical and component variables associated with failure of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties, particularly in patients undergoing revision arthroplasty because of unexplained hip pain, and to clarify the role of material loss.Methods: We prospectively recruited fifty-five patients who were undergoing revision of a metal-on-metal Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR) arthroplasty (Smith & Nephew). We collected clinical data preoperatively, intraoperatively, and following the revision arthroplasty. Data included chromium and cobalt levels in whole blood, which were measured with use of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS), and component orientation, which was typically measured with use of computed tomography (CT) scans. The wear of the retrieved components was also quantified postoperatively. All parameters were compared with those in a comparable group of patients with a well-functioning BHR arthroplasty.Results: Sixty-nine percent of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty did so following a diagnosis of unexplained hip pain. When compared with patients with a well-functioning arthroplasty, patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had a significantly higher acetabular cup inclination angle (p < 0.01), a significantly smaller femoral head diameter (p < 0.01), and significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels (p < 0.01). However, almost 50% of the patients who underwent revision arthroplasty had blood metal ion levels below the clinical threshold of 7 ppb and low component wear rates of <5 μm/year.Conclusions: In a large number of patients with unexplained hip pain leading to revision of a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty, the acetabular cup orientation was satisfactory and the material loss rate was low. We suspect that patient-specific factors may have been responsible for the failure in a large proportion of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) have a known issue with fracture of the internal locking pin resulting in early revisions. The manufacturer reported that rods manufactured before March 26, 2015, had a 5% risk of locking pin fracture. Locking pins made after this date are thicker in diameter and of a tougher alloy; their rate of pin fracture is not known. The aim of this study was to better understand the impact of the design changes on the performance of MCGRs., Methods: This study involves 46 patients with 76 removed MCGRs. Forty-six rods were manufactured before March 26, 2015, and 30 rods after that date. Clinical and implant data were collected for all MCGRs. Retrieval analysis comprised plain radiographs evaluations, force and elongation testing, and disassembly., Results: The 2 patient groups were statistically comparable. We found that 14 of 27 patients implanted with rods manufactured before March 26, 2015 (group I) had a fracture of their locking pins. Three of the 17 patients with rods manufactured after this date (group II) were also found to have a fractured pin., Conclusions: Retrieved rods collected at our center and made after March 26, 2015, had far fewer locking pin fractures than those made before this date; this may be due to the change in pin design., Competing Interests: Two surgeon authors (S.T. and M.S.) use the devices investigated in this study in their clinical practice. The senior author (A.H.) receives institutional-level funding from the manufacturer to independently collect and analyze the devices investigated in this study. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The mechanisms of fracture in magnetically controlled growing rods (MCGRs) and the risk factors associated with this are poorly understood. This retrospective analysis of explanted MCGRs aimed to add understanding to this subject., Methods: From our cohort of over 120 retrieved MCGRs, we identified 7 rods that had fractured; all were single-rod constructs, retrieved from 6 patients. These were examined and compared with 15 intact single-rod constructs. Retrieval and fractographic analyses were used to determine the failure mode at the fracture site and the implant's functionality. Cobb angle, degree of rod contouring, and the distance between anchoring points were computed on anteroposterior and lateral radiographs., Results: 5/7 versus 3/15 rods had been inserted after the removal of a previously inserted rod, in the fractured versus control groups. All fractured rods failed due to bending fatigue. Fractured rods had greater rod contouring angles in the frontal plane ( P = 0.0407) and lateral plane ( P = 0.0306), and greater distances between anchoring points in both anteroposterior and lateral planes ( P = 0.0061 and P = 0.0074, respectively)., Conclusions: We found all failed due to a fatigue fracture and were virtually all single rod configurations. Fracture initiation points corresponded with mechanical indentation marks induced by the intraoperative rod contouring tool. Fractured rods had undergone greater rod contouring and had greater distances between anchoring points, suggesting that it is preferable to implant double rod constructs in patients with sufficient spinal maturity to avoid this complication., Clinical Relevance: Level III., Competing Interests: H.H. and A.H. receive institutional support from NuVasive to independently collect and analyze retrieved MAGEC rods. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-reported neurotoxicity and cognitive defects in hip replacement patients with markedly raised blood cobalt., Methods: Case group comprised 53 patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and a history of blood Co ≥20 μg/L for a median of 3 years (interquartile range, 2-5 years). The control group comprised 53 patients with ceramic-on-ceramic prostheses and blood Co <1 μg/L. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 60-74 years). The participants completed the Neurotoxic Symptom Checklist-60, Diabetic Neuropathy Score, Douleur Neuropathique-10, and Systemic Symptom Checklist, and underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination., Results: The MoM and ceramic-on-ceramic groups were compared, the results were as follows: Neurotoxic Symptom Checklist-60 (median): cognitive defects (2.0 versus 1.9; P = 0.002), chest complaints (1.3 versus 1.3; P = 0.042), balance disturbances (1.3 versus 1.0; P < 0.001), sleep disturbances (2.7 versus 2.0; P = 0.004), mood disorders (2.0 versus 1.5; P = 0.001), sensorimotor disorders (1.6 versus 1.2; P < 0.001), physical complaints (2.0 versus 1.4; P = 0.009), fatigue (2.0 versus 1.6; P = 0.001), and total score (108 versus 90; P < 0.001); abnormal Diabetic Neuropathy Score/Douleur Neuropathique-10 (%): 60.3/13.2 versus 24.5/1.9 (P < 0.001/P = 0.028). Systemic Symptom Checklist (in percent): feeling cold (37.7 versus 17; P = 0.01), weight gain (18.9 versus 1.9; P = 0.008), metallic taste (26.4 versus 3.8; P = 0.002), worsening eyesight (37.7 versus 15.1; P = 0.008) and hearing (24.5 versus 7.5; 0.032), ankle swelling (32.1 versus 7.5; P = 0.002), shortness of breath on exertion (9.4 versus 5.7; P = 0.015), and generalized rash (28.3 versus 7.5; P = 0.01); and Mini-Mental State Examination (median): 29 versus 30 (P = 0.017). Patients in the MoM group were aware of their high cobalt levels and displayed a higher tendency to overreport symptoms (P < 0.001), which could have contributed to the higher scores., Conclusions: Frequency of reporting a number of symptoms was markedly higher in MoM patients, but clinically significant neurotoxicity was not observed (possibly due to the short exposure to elevated cobalt). Patients with repeated blood Co ≥20 μg/L measurements should be questioned about possible systemic health complaints at follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest. A.J.H. has been a principal investigator on institutional projects funded by DePuy and Stryker. He also had a personal consultancy agreement with DePuy., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)