High Revision Rate for Large-head Metal-on-metal THA at a Mean of 7.1 Years: A Registry Study
- PMID: 29480891
- PMCID: PMC6263568
- DOI: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000159
High Revision Rate for Large-head Metal-on-metal THA at a Mean of 7.1 Years: A Registry Study
Abstract
Background: Large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) THA has largely been abandoned as a result of higher than anticipated revision rates. However, the majority of these implants are still in situ. Although earlier reports from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register noted similar short-term survivorship between large-diameter head MoM THA and conventional cemented THA, longer term survivorship of this population is unclear. Although reported revision rates for this implant group have been high, the majority of these implants have not been revised and followup is important to improve long-term management.
Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the 10-year competing risk survivorship of large-diameter head MoM THA with the survivorship of conventional THA in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register; (2) to report the large-diameter head MoM THA survival at the manufacturer/brand level; and (3) to identify the most common reasons for revision of large-diameter head MoM THA in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.
Methods: The six most commonly used large-diameter head (≥ 38 mm) MoM THA devices in Finland between years 2004 and 2013 were selected (n = 10,959 implants). The completeness of the Finnish Registry is > 95% in primary THA and patients are censored from the date of death or at the point of emigration; followup continued until the end of 2015. The conventional THA control group consisted of the two most frequently used devices (Vision/Bimetric and ABG II/ABG II) with metal-on-polyethylene or ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces implanted between 2002 and 2013 (n = 5177). The study group was formed by selecting all pairs of large-diameter head MoM and reference THA protheses within the same age group ( < 49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and 75+ years), sex, diagnosis (osteoarthritis, other), and hospital yearly operation count (< 100 operations yearly, ≥ 100 operations yearly); 5166 matched pairs were identified. Revision for any reason was considered as the failure endpoint of followup. Implant survival (the proportion not revised) was calculated from corresponding cumulative incidence function adjusted for patient death as a competing event for revision. Large-diameter head MoM implant group revision hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with age group, sex, diagnosis, and hospital yearly operation count as confounding factors in a Cox regression model.
Results: Ten-year survivorship free from all-cause revision was lower for THAs that used a large-diameter femoral head than it was for the control group of conventional THA (83% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 82%-84%] versus 92% [95% CI, 91%-93%]). At the implant level, every large-diameter head MoM THA had a higher risk for revision compared with the conventional THA control group from the fourth postoperative year onward. The highest survival of MoM THA was 88% (95% CI, 86%-90%) for the ReCap/Bimetric and the lowest survival was 46% (95% CI, 41%-51%) for the recalled ASR with either the Summit® or Corail® stem. The most common revision reason in the MoM THA group was adverse reaction to metal debris, whereas dislocation was predominant in the conventional THA control group.
Conclusions: The revision rate for all large-diameter head MoM THAs in this timeframe in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register is unacceptably high and in our view supports the decision to abandon their use. In agreement with the directives of other national organizations, we recommend regular followup of all patients with large-diameter head MoM THA. Based on our results, strict guidelines for followup should be maintained over the lifetime of the implant to assess patient symptoms and recommend revision when indicated.
Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.
Conflict of interest statement
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and
Figures
Similar articles
-
What Is the Long-term Survival for Primary THA With Small-head Metal-on-metal Bearings?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jun;476(6):1231-1237. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000209. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018. PMID: 29432270 Free PMC article.
-
What Is the Risk of THA Revision for ARMD in Patients with Non-metal-on-metal Bearings? A Study from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Jun;478(6):1244-1253. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001277. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020. PMID: 32345846 Free PMC article.
-
Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Nov;478(11):2625-2636. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001453. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020. PMID: 32898048 Free PMC article.
-
Outcomes of different bearings in total hip arthroplasty - implant survival, revision causes, and patient-reported outcome.Dan Med J. 2017 Mar;64(3):B5350. Dan Med J. 2017. PMID: 28260601 Review.
-
Understanding outcomes and toxicological aspects of second generation metal-on-metal hip implants: a state-of-the-art review.Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018 Nov;48(10):853-901. doi: 10.1080/10408444.2018.1563048. Epub 2019 Mar 26. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2018. PMID: 30912993 Review.
Cited by
-
Revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty using cemented arthroplasty: a mean 10-year follow-up of 157 consecutive patients.J Int Med Res. 2021 Jan;49(1):300060520969478. doi: 10.1177/0300060520969478. J Int Med Res. 2021. PMID: 33435780 Free PMC article.
-
Repeated metal ion measurements and long-term outcome of Durom/MMC total hip arthroplasty.Acta Orthop. 2022 Jan 19;93:241-248. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.1444. Acta Orthop. 2022. PMID: 35043969 Free PMC article.
-
Repeated cobalt and chromium ion measurements in patients with large-diameter head metal-on-metal ReCap-M2A-Magnum total hip replacement.Acta Orthop. 2019 Jun;90(3):243-248. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1595469. Epub 2019 Apr 4. Acta Orthop. 2019. PMID: 30945585 Free PMC article.
-
Repeated cobalt and chromium ion measurements in patients with bilateral large-diameter head metal-on-metal ReCap-M2A-Magnum total hip replacement.Acta Orthop. 2020 Aug;91(4):378-382. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1751940. Epub 2020 Apr 14. Acta Orthop. 2020. PMID: 32285731 Free PMC article.
-
Long-term outcomes of small head metal-on-metal compared to ceramic-on-polyethylene primary total hip arthroplasty: a registry-based cohort study.Int Orthop. 2025 Mar;49(3):605-612. doi: 10.1007/s00264-025-06437-z. Epub 2025 Feb 12. Int Orthop. 2025. PMID: 39937240 Free PMC article.
References
-
- AOANJRR. AOANJRR Supplementary Report 2014. Metal on Metal Bearing Surface Total Conventional Hip Arthroplasty. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2014. Accessed October 29, 2017.
-
- AOANJRR. Annual Report 2016 2016 Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2016. Accessed October 29, 2017.
-
- FAR. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR). Available at: www.thl.fi/far. Accessed October 29, 2017.
-
- FDA. General Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons After Metal-on-metal Hip Replacement Surgery (Follow-up). Available at: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/Implants.... Accessed October 29, 2017.
-
- Finnish Arthroplasty Association. Finnish Arthroplasty Associations MoM Follow Up Recommendations2014: http://www.suomenartroplastiayhdistys.fi/index.php?page=1050&lang=1.October 29, 2017.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials