This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Further opinion Submit a response View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by De Haan, R. Articles by De Smet, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by De Haan, R. Articles by De Smet, K. A.

Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip

THE INFLUENCE OF MALPOSITIONING OF THE COMPONENTS

¹ University Hospital Brussels, Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
² J. Vernon Luck Snr MD, Orthopaedic Research Centre, Orthopaedic Hospital/University of California Los Angeles, 2400 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90007, USA.
³ Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, New York 10021, USA.
⁴ ANCA Medical Centre, Krijgslaan 181, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr K. De Smet; e-mail: dr.desmet{at}heup.be

We have reviewed 42 patients who had revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures, mostly because of problems with the acetabular component. The revisions were carried out a mean of 26.2 months (1 to 76) after the initial operation and most of the patients (30) were female.

Malpositioning of the acetabular component resulted in 27 revisions, mostly because of excessive abduction (mean 69.9°; 56° to 98°) or insufficient or excessive anteversion. Seven patients had more than one reason for revision. The mean increase in the diameter of the component was 1.8 mm (0 to 4) when exchange was needed.

Malpositioning of the components was associated with metallosis and a high level of serum ions. The results of revision of the femoral component to a component with a modular head were excellent, but four patients had dislocation after revision and four required a further revision.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. K. Eswaramoorthy, L. C. Biant, and R. E. Field Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing J Bone Joint Surg Br, November 1, 2009; 91-B(11): 1454 - 1458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Langton, A. P. Sprowson, T. J. Joyce, M. Reed, I. Carluke, P. Partington, and A. V. F. Nargol Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ARTICULAR SURFACE REPLACEMENT AND BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTIES J Bone Joint Surg Br, October 1, 2009; 91-B(10): 1287 - 1295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Grammatopolous, H. Pandit, Y.-M. Kwon, R. Gundle, P. McLardy-Smith, D. J. Beard, D. W. Murray, and H. S. Gill Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome J Bone Joint Surg Br, August 1, 2009; 91-B(8): 1019 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Ollivere, C. Darrah, T. Barker, J. Nolan, and M. J. Porteous Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis J Bone Joint Surg Br, August 1, 2009; 91-B(8): 1025 - 1030. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Schnurr, J. Nessler, C. Meyer, H. H. Schild, J. Koebke, and D. P. Konig Is a valgus position of the femoral component in hip resurfacing protective against spontaneous fracture of the femoral neck?: A BIOMECHANICAL STUDY J Bone Joint Surg Br, April 1, 2009; 91-B(4): 545 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. De Haan, C. Pattyn, H. S. Gill, D. W. Murray, P. A. Campbell, and K. De Smet Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br, October 1, 2008; 90-B(10): 1291 - 1297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: