These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.
    Author: Salmons HI, Fruth KM, Lewallen DG, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ, Abdel MP.
    Journal: J Arthroplasty; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2399-2405. PubMed ID: 35738361.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: While common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m2. Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years). RESULTS: The 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24). CONCLUSION: Revision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]