ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017
Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salvaging failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a polyethylene acetabular revision.Annals of joint · 2026Article
- Isolated acetabular cup revision in Metal-on-Metal total hip arthroplasty: a low-complication strategy feasible in only half of cases.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Is there still an indication for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in femoral head osteonecrosis?International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Case report: Formation and recurrence of inflammatory pseudotumor after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- International primary hip arthroplasty registry review: findings from current reports.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Review
- Long-Term Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship of Total Hip Arthroplasty for Pyogenic Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 168 Hips.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Favourable clinical outcomes following cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 10 years.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020Article
- Complications and re-revisions after revisions of 528 metal-on-metal hips because of adverse reaction to metal debris.Acta orthopaedica · 2020Article
- Internal Fixation of an Intertrochanteric Fracture after Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2020Article
- No Threshold Exists for Recommending Revision Surgery in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 346 Revisions.The Journal of arthroplasty · 2019Article
- What Is the Clinical Presentation of Adverse Local Tissue Reaction in Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty? An MRI Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- Outcomes after revision of metal on metal hip resurfacing to total arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach.International orthopaedics · 2018Article
- Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- Long-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2018Article
- CORR Insights®: Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Article
- Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018Observational
- Article
- Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? an analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.The bone & joint journal · 2017Observational
- Letter to the Editor: Poor Survivorship and Frequent Complications at a Median of 10 Years After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing Revision.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes?
methodsBetween 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7-15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures.
resultsOverall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%-74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%-76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%-85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%-81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2-46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2-7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1-29; p = 0.040).
conclusionsPoor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, 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.