ArticleCureus2024
Adverse Metal Reaction in a Case of Metal-on-Polyethylene Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soft tissue inflammatory responses to metal debris from prostheses, categorised as adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), are frequent complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and often result in implant failure. Introducing modular implant designs in modern orthopaedics has brought benefits to total hip replacements but has also increased patients' susceptibility to corrosion-related risks. ARMD can develop from various metal articulating surfaces, including ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), metal-on-metal (MoM), and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) configurations. In this case study, a 68-year-old male who underwent a MoP implant for osteoarthritis of the right hip 16 years ago presented with pain and difficulty walking, exacerbated over the past three months. Clinical examination revealed tenderness around the implant and a limited range of motion. Imaging studies, including X-rays and ultrasound-guided aspiration, coupled with normal serum and urinary cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) levels, confirmed the diagnosis of ARMD. Given the severity of symptoms and radiographic findings, surgical intervention was warranted, leading to a two-stage revision with implant augmentation using a Burch-Schneider cage. Three months post operation, the patient experienced significant improvements in pain levels, range of motion (ROM), and hip function. This case underscores the importance of vigilant surveillance for ARMD in patients undergoing non-MoM THA, even years post surgery. Prompt recognition and management of ARMD are crucial to mitigate the risk of long-term complications and optimise patient outcomes. Further research is needed to understand the risk factors and mechanisms underlying ARMD in MoP THA, aiding in developing preventive strategies and refined treatment protocols.
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.