Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Case Reports
. 2017 Mar 18;8(3):286-289.
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i3.286.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty complicated by mismatched implant components

Alessandro Calistri  1 , Patricia Campbell  1 , Catherine Van Der Straeten  1 , Koen Aimè De Smet  1
Affiliations
Case Reports

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty complicated by mismatched implant components

Alessandro Calistri et al. World J Orthop. .

Abstract

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has gained popularity as a feasible treatment option for young and active patients with hip osteoarthritis and high functional expectations. This procedure should only be performed by surgeons who have trained specifically in this technique. Preoperative planning is essential for hip resurfacing in order to execute a successful operation and preview any technical problems. The authors present a case of a man who underwent a resurfacing arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the left hip that was complicated by mismatched implant components that were revised three days afterwards for severe pain and leg length discrepancy. Such mistakes, although rare, can be prevented by educating operating room staff in the size and colour code tables provided by the companies on their prostheses or implant boxes.

Keywords: Hip resurfacing; Mismatch; Revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict-of-interest statement: Campbell P is a consultant for DePuy Synthes, Wright Medical Technology and her lab receives funding for retrieval analysis of metal-on-metal implants from DePuy Synthes; all the other authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The post-operative X-ray, showed a mismatch between the femoral and the acetabular component diameters.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Coordinate measuring machines wear measurement of the mismatched couple showed that the femoral component had already been damaged.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The 62-mm cup mismatched with and 56-mm head and but correctly matched with a 54-mm head. A: Mismatched couple with 62-mm cup and 56-mm head. Note how the femoral head was not fully seated in the socket by 3 to 4 mm. Compared to B; B: The same 62-mm thick shell cup correctly matched with a 54-mm head.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:454–463. - PubMed
    1. Lachiewicz PF. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a skeptic’s view. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:86–91. - PubMed
    1. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty. Surgical Technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88 Suppl 1 Pt 2:234–249. - PubMed
    1. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1291–1297. - PubMed
    1. De Haan R, Campbell PA, Su EP, De Smet KA. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1158–1163. - PubMed

Publication types