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

Jetse 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 journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

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
JournalArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
Early online date30 Nov 2021
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Nov 2021

Keywords

  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Metal-on-metal
  • Re-revision rates
  • Registry
  • Revision arthroplasty
  • Survival

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this