The purpose of this study was to study the initial fixation and migration pattern of a monoblock acetabular component used for a metal on metal hip resurfacing using Einzel Bild Roentgen Analyse (EBRA).
Methods
99 patients with a mean age of 49.6 years (range 28.5-66.3 years) of whom 14 were bilateral underwent a hip resurfacing (Conserve Plus®, MicroPort, Memphis, TN) for a total of 113 resurfacings. Acetabular component orientation was noted with 35 of the 113 components (31.0%) having a lucency >2 mm on the immediate postoperative radiograph.
Results
The mean follow-up for our cohort of 113 hips is 50 months (2-79 months). When examining the 2-year migration mark, 37 of the 113 hips exceeded the threshold of 0.5 mm/year with a median total migration of 1.40 mm (range 1.02-4.24). 6 resurfacings underwent revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component at a mean time of 43.6 months. Presence of initial lucency (OR 2.29, p = 0.05) was the only significant predictor of migration over threshold at 2-years. Those that had migrated over the threshold (1.0 mm) at 2 years were at significantly greater risk of continued migration at 4 years.
Conclusions
The migration pattern of this component raises concerns about long term performance, with postoperative lucencies representing a significant factor for future migration.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJCampbellPAGruenTAWiskLEClinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663–2671.
2.
GrossTPLiuFWebbLAClinical outcome of the metal-on-metal hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 hip resurfacing system: an up to 11-year follow-up study.J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(4):533–538e1.
3.
TreacyRBMcBrydeCWPynsentPBBirmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty.A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87-B(2):167–170.
4.
de SteigerRNMillerLNDavidsonDCRyanPGravesSEJoint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses.Acta Orthop. 2013;84(4):348–352.
5.
ShimminABeauléPECampbellPMetal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):637–654.
6.
KimPRBeaulePELaflammeGYDunbarMJCauses of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing.J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 Suppl 1):44–49.
7.
NakasoneSTakaoMNishiiTSakaiTSuganoNIncidence and natural course of initial polar gaps in Birmingham Hip Resurfacing cups.J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(9):1676–1682.
8.
HuiskesRVerdonschotNJFailure scenarios and the innovation cycle. In: Callaghan JJ, Rosenberg AE, Rubash HE, eds. The Adult Hip.2nd ed.PhiladelphiaLippincott Williams & Wilkins 2007, 167-183.
9.
FreemanMARPlante-BordeneuvePEarly migration and late aseptic failure of proximal femoral prostheses.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):432–438.
10.
KrismerMBiedermannRStöcklBFischerMBauerRHaidCThe prediction of failure of the stem in THR by measurement of early migration using EBRA-FCA.Einzel-Bild-Roentgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(2):273–280.
11.
FowbleVASchuhAHokeRBitschRGBeauléPEClinical correlation of femoral component migration in hip resurfacing arthroplasty analyzed by Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-analyze-femoral component analysis.Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(2): 243–250, x.
12.
IlchmannTRadiographic assessment of cup migration and wear after hip replacement.Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1997;276:1–26.
13.
BiedermannRKrismerMStöcklBMayrhoferPOrnsteinEFranzénHAccuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement.Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(2):266–272.
14.
IlchmannTFranzénHMjöbergBWingstrandHMeasurement accuracy in acetabular cup migration.A comparison of four radiologic methods versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 1992;7(2):121–127.
15.
BellamyNBuchananWWGoldsmithCHCampbellJStittLWValidation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following total or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis.J Orthop Rheumatol. 1988;(1):95–108.
16.
KrismerMBauerRTschupikJMayrhoferPEBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components.J Biomech. 1995;28(10):1225–1236.
17.
LangtonDJSprowsonAPMahadevaDBhatnagarSHollandJPNargolAVCup anteversion in hip resurfacing: validation of EBRA and the presentation of a simple clinical grading system.J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(4):607–613.
18.
IlchmannTFranzénHMjöbergBWingstrandHMeasurement accuracy in acetabular cup migration.A comparison of four radiologic methods versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 1992;7(2):121–127.
19.
KrismerMStöcklBFischerMBauerRMayrhoferPOgonMEarly migration predicts late aseptic failure of hip sockets.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(3):422–426.
20.
MjöbergBFixation and loosening of hip prostheses.A review. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991;62(5):500–508.
21.
LoudonJRCharnleyJSubsidence of the femoral prosthesis in total hip replacement in relation to the design of the stem.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1980;62-B(4):450–453.
22.
SelvikGRoentgen stereophotogrammetry.A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1989;232(232):1–51.
23.
KärrholmJHerbertsPHultmarkPMalchauHNivbrantBThannerJRadiostereometry of hip prostheses.Review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;(344):94–110.
24.
StocksGWFreemanMAEvansSJAcetabular cup migration.Prediction of aseptic loosening. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77(6):853–861.
25.
RadlRHungerfordMWMaternaWRehakPWindhagerRHigher failure rate and stem migration of an uncemented femoral component in patients with femoral head osteonecrosis than in patients with osteoarthritis.Acta Orthop Scand. 2009;76(1):49–55.
26.
ItayemRArndtAMcMinnDJDanielJLundbergAA five-year radiostereometric follow-up of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(9):1140–1143.
27.
StoecklBBrabecEWannerSKrismerMBiedermannRRadiographic evaluation of the Duraloc cup after 4 years.Int Orthop. 2005;29(1):14–17.
28.
StihsenCPabingerCRadlRRehakPWindhagerRMigration of the Duraloc cup after 5 years.Int Orthop. 2008;32(6):791–794.
29.
CollierJPMayorMBChaeJCSurprenantVASurprenantHPDauphinaisLAMacroscopic and microscopic evidence of prosthetic fixation with porous-coated materials.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;(235):173–180.
30.
EnghCAZettl-SchafferKFKukitaYSweetDJastyMBragdonCHistological and radiographic assessment of well functioning porous-coated acetabular components.A human postmortem retrieval study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(6): 814–824.
31.
TookeSMNugentPJChotivichitAGoodmanWKaboJMComparison of in vivo cementless acetabular fixation.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;(235):253–260.
32.
JakobsenSSBaasJJakobsenTSoballeKBiomechanical implant fixation of CoCrMo coating inferior to titanium coating in a canine implant model.J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;94(1):180–186.
33.
JinnoTGoldbergVMDavyDStevensonSOsseointegration of surface-blasted implants made of titanium alloy and cobalt-chromium alloy in a rabbit intramedullary model.J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;42(1):20–29.
34.
BobynJDTohKKHackingSATanzerMKrygierJJTissue response to porous tantalum acetabular cups: a canine model.J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(3):347–354.
35.
BertonCGirardJKrantzNMigaudHThe Durom large diameter head acetabular component: early results with a large-diameter metal-on-metal bearing.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(2):202–208.
36.
LongWTDastaneMHarrisMJWanZDorrLDFailure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):400–405.
37.
MjöbergBTheories of wear and loosening in hip prostheses.Wear-induced loosening vs loosening-induced wear—a review. Acta Orthop Scand. 1994;65(3):361–371.
38.
SadeghiCGibsonAGRiesMDAnalysis of migration of press-fit porous-coated acetabular components with medial lucencies using Ein-Bild-Roentegen-Analyse.J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(7):1354–1357.
39.
MacherasGKaterosKKostakosAKoutsostathisSDanomarasDPapagelopoulosPJEight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component.J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(5):705–709.
40.
SchmalzriedTPWessingerSJHillGEHarrisWHThe Harris-Galante porous acetabular component press-fit without screw fixation.Five-year radiographic analysis of primary cases. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(3):235–242.
41.
SpringerBDGriffinWLFehringTKSuarezJOdumSThompsonCIncomplete seating of press-fit porous-coated acetabular components: the fate of zone 2 lucencies.J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6)(Suppl 1):121–126.
42.
HothiHSBusfieldJJSheltonJCExplicit finite element modelling of the impaction of metal press-fit acetabular components.Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2011;225(3):303–314.
43.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJCampbellPAWiskLETakamuraKMComplications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42(2):207–230, viii.
