Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study

J. Jelsma*, S.M.J. van Kuijk, A. Spekenbrink-Spooren, B. Grimm, I.C. Heyligers, M.G.M. Schotanus

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Web of Science)

Abstract

Background Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Methods Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties. Results A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53-4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06-4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03-3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision. Conclusion Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4025–4032
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Volume142
Early online date30 Nov 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Keywords

  • Metal-on-metal
  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Registry
  • Revision arthroplasty
  • Survival
  • Re-revision rates
  • NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY
  • REPLACEMENTS
  • ENGLAND

Cite this