ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2016
Adverse Reactions to Metal on Metal Are Not Exclusive to Large Heads in Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pseudotumours, cobalt and clinical outcome in small head metal-on-metal versus conventional metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2020Trial
- Revision rate of large head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: long-term results.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcome of Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty with Modular Neck Stem.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Review
- Systemic Metal Ion Concentrations in Patients With Hip and Knee Megaprostheses: A Prospective Cohort Study.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- No difference in implant survival between 28-mm M2a RingLoc metal-on-metal and metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty: results from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- A Rare Case of Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in a Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Replacement.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Adverse Tissue Reactions and Metal Ion Behavior After Small-Head Metasul Hip Arthroplasty: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- The influence of bearing surfaces on revisions due to dislocations in total hip arthroplasty.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2021Article
- Primary Stability in Hip Revision Arthroplasty: Comparison of the Stability of Cementless Fixed Augments on a Modular Acetabular Cage System with and without Cranial Straps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Investigation of the effects of electrochemical reactions on complex metal tribocorrosion within the human body.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Small-head metal on metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high rate of complication and reoperation at mid-term follow-up.SAGE open medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Long-Term Results of a Second-Generation, Small-Diameter, Metal-On-Metal Bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty at 14-year Follow-Up.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Are Serum Metal Ion Levels a Concern at Mid-term Followup of Revision Knee Arthroplasty With a Metal-on-metal Hinge Design?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- Revision of ASR hip arthroplasty: analysis of two hundred and ninety six recalled patients at seven years.International orthopaedics · 2019Article
- CORR Insights®: What Is the Long-term Survival for Primary THA With Small-head Metal-on-metal Bearings?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is some suggestion that smaller diameter heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA) may be less prone to the adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) seen with large-diameter heads. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed our population of patients with small head (≤ 32 mm) MoM THA to determine (1) the frequency of ARMD; (2) potential risk factors for ARMD in this population; and (3) the etiology of revision and Kaplan-Meier survivorship with revision for all causes.
methodsSmall-diameter head MoM devices were used in 9% (347 of 3753) of primary THAs during the study period (January 1996 to March 2005). We generally used these implants in younger, more active, higher-demand patients. Three hundred hips (258 patients) had MoM THA using a titanium modular acetabular component with a cobalt-chromium tapered insert and were available for review with minimum 2-year followup (mean, 10 years; range, 2-19 years). Complete followup was available in 86% of hips (300 of 347). Clinical records and radiographs were reviewed to determine the frequency and etiology of revision. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed.
resultsARMD frequency was 5% (14 of 300 hips) and represented 70% (14 of 20) of revisions performed. Using multivariate analysis, no variable tested, including height, weight, body mass index, age, cup diameter, cup angle, use of screws, stem diameter, stem type, head diameter, preoperative clinical score, diagnosis, activity level, or sex, was significant as a risk factor for revision. Twenty hips have been revised: two for infection, four for aseptic loosening, and 14 for ARMD. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed survival free of component revision for all causes was 95% at 10 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 91%-97%), 92% at 15 years (95% CI, 87%-95%), and 72% at 19 years (95% CI, 43%-90%), and survival free of component revision for aseptic causes was 96% at 10 years (95% CI, 92%-98%), 92% at 15 years (95% CI, 88%-95%), and 73% at 19 years (95% CI, 43%-90%).
conclusionsThe late onset and devastating nature of metal-related failures is concerning with this small-diameter MoM device. Although the liner is modular, it cannot be exchanged and full acetabular revision is required. Patients with all MoM THA devices should be encouraged to return for clinical and radiographic followup, and clinicians should maintain a low threshold to perform a systematic evaluation. Symptomatic patients should undergo thorough investigation and vigilant observation for ARMD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.