Metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) have been linked with increased incidence of pseudotumours and revision rate. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful in diagnosing adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) disease but it is not known if MRI findings correlate with cup position.
Patients and methods:
From a cohort of 79 MoM THA, 34 MRI studies were available. MRI was classified according to Anderson classification. Mean follow-up was 7.1 years. Evaluation included cup position including margin of safety, measurement of metal ion levels and evaluation of function.
Results:
44% of patients had definite ARMD. We did not find any correlation between MRI stage and Co, Cr, margin of safety (MOS) or functional scores. However, patients with a margin of safety angle < 21° had more severe findings in MRI.
Conclusions:
Patients with MoM THA experience high degree of ARMD. In our study, the disease did not correlate with metal ion levels but correlated with cup position, evaluated with the MOS angle.
SinghGMeyerHRuetschiM, et al. Large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties: a page in orthopedic history?J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101: 3320–3326.
2.
RiekerCBSchönRKöttigP.Development and validation of a second-generation on metal-on-metal bearing: laboratory studies and analysis of retrievals. J Arthroplasty2004;19(Suppl. 3): 5–11.
JungmannPMAgtenCAPfirrmannCW, et al. Advances in MRI around metal. J Magn Reson Imaging2017; 46: 972–991.
8.
AndersonHTomsAPCahirJG, et al. Grading the severity of soft tissue changes associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements: reliability of an MR grading system. Skeletal Radiol2011; 40: 303–307.
9.
KoutalosAAKourtisAClarkeIC, et al. Mid-term results of ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with mean follow-up of 7.1 years. Hip Int2017; 27: 226–234.
10.
HarrisWH.Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end- result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am1969; 51: 737–755.
11.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 185–190.
12.
WareJJrKosinskiMKellerSDA. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care1996; 34: 220–233.
13.
HerdmanMGudexCLloydA, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res2011; 20: 1727–1736.
14.
ClarkeILazennecJ.Margin-of-safety algorithm used with EOS imaging to interpret MHRA warning for 46-48mm MOM arthroplasty. Reconstructive Review2015; 5: 13–21.
15.
WyldeVMacleanABlomAW.Post-operative radiographic factors and patient-reported outcome after total hip replacement. Hip Int2012; 22: 153–159.
16.
AydoganMBurçHSakaG.A new method for the measurement of anteversion of the acetabular cup after total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2014; 24: 897–903.
17.
KwonYMLiowMHDimitriouD, et al. What is the natural history of “asymptomatic” pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty? Minimum 4-year metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging longitudinal study. J Arthroplasty2016; 31(Suppl.): 121–126.
18.
GoldsteinJMFehringTKFehringKA.Cystic adverse local tissue reactions in asymptomatic modular Metal-on-Metal total hips may decrease over time. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 1589–1594.
19.
van der WeegenWBrakelKHornRJ, et al. Asymptomatic pseudotumours after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing show little change within one year. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B:1626–1631.
20.
FoxCMBerginKMKellyGE, et al. MRI findings following metal on metal hip arthroplasty and their relationship with metal ion levels and acetabular inclination angles. J Arthroplasty2014; 29: 1647–1652.
21.
MalekIAKingASharmaH, et al. The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of raised plasma metal ion levels in the diagnosis of adverse reaction to metal debris in symptomatic patients with a metal-on-metal arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 1045–1050.
22.
HartAJSabahSABandiAS, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 1308–1313.
van der WeegenWSmoldersJMSijbesmaT, et al. High incidence of pseudotumours after hip resurfacing even in low risk patients; results from an intensified MRI screening protocol. Hip Int2013; 23: 243–249.
25.
MatharuGSBlanshardODhaliwalK, et al. Patient and radiographic factors help to predict Metal-on-metal hip resurfacings with evidence of a pseudotumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 214–222.
26.
LangtonDJJoyceTJJamesonSS, et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 164–171.
27.
KanawadeVDorrLDWanZ. Predictability of acetabular component angular change with postural shift from standing to sitting Position. J Bone Joint Surg Am 201; 96: 978–986.
28.
ScholesSCHuntBJRichardsonVM, et al. Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint. Bone Joint Res2017; 6: 113–122.
29.
MatthiesAKSkinnerJAOsmaniH, et al. Pseudotumors are common in well-positioned low-wearing metal- on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 1895–1906.
30.
HauptfleischJPanditHGrammatopoulosG, et al. A MRI classification of periprosthetic soft tissue masses (pseudotumors) associated with metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol2012; 41: 149–155.
31.
van der WeegenWBrakelKHornRJ, et al. Comparison of different pseudotumor grading systems in a single cohort of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients. Skeletal Radiol2014; 43: 149–155.
32.
ChangEYMcAnallyJLVan HorneJR, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR Imaging findings?Radiology2012; 265: 848–857.
