Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2954-61. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3023-6.

High prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris in small-headed ASR™ hips.

Reito A, Puolakka T, Elo P, Pajamäki J, Eskelinen A.
Hip

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern of metal-on-metal (MOM) hip replacements regarding adverse reactions to metal debris. Information regarding prevalence and risk factors for these adverse reactions is scarce.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The primary purposes of our study were to determine (1) the prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris among patients who received small-headed (< 50 mm) Articular Surface Replacement (ASR™) prostheses in hip resurfacing procedures or the ASR™ XL prostheses during THAs at our institution, and (2) the risk factors for adverse reactions to metal debris and if they are different in hip resurfacing replacements compared with THAs?

METHODS: Small-headed ASR™ prostheses were used in 482 operations (424 patients) at our institution. After the recall of ASR™ prostheses, we established a systematic screening program to find patients with adverse reactions to metal debris. At a mean of 4.9 years (range, 0.2-8.1 years) postoperatively, 379 patients (435 hips) attended a screening program, which consisted of clinical evaluation, whole blood cobalt and chromium measurements, and cross-sectional imaging.

RESULTS: At followup, 162 hips (34%) have been revised. The majority (85%) were revised owing to causes related to adverse reactions to metal debris. The 7-year survivorship was 51% for the ASR™ hip replacement cohort and 38% for the ASR™ XL THA cohort, respectively. Reduced cup coverage was an independent risk factor for adverse reactions to metal debris in both cohorts. High preoperative ROM, use of the Corail(®) stem, and female gender were associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions to metal debris only in patients undergoing THA.

CONCLUSIONS: Adverse reactions to metal debris are common with small-headed ASR™ prostheses. Risk factors for these adverse reactions differ between hip resurfacing procedures and THAs. Our results suggest a more complicated failure mechanism in THAs than in hip resurfacing procedures.


Download article