| Abstract: | Background and purpose Data from the national joint registries in Australia and England and Wales have revealed inferior medium-term survivorship for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) than for metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA. Based on data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA), we compared the revision risk of cementless stemmed THA with MoM and MoP bearings and we also compared MoM THA to each other.Patients and methods We identified 32,678 patients who were operated from 2002 through 2010 with cementless stemmed THA with either MoM bearings (11,567 patients, 35%) or MoP bearings (21,111 patients, 65%). The patients were followed until revision, death, emigration, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2011), and median follow-up was 3.6 (interquartile range (IQR): 2.4–4.8) years for MoM bearings and 3.4 (IQR: 2.0–5.8) years for MoP bearings. Multivariable regression in the presence of competing risk of death was used to assess the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason (with 95% confidence interval (CI)).Results The cumulative incidence of revision at 8 years of follow-up was 7.0% (CI: 6.0–8.1) for MoM bearings and 5.1% (CI: 4.7–5.6) for MoP bearings. At 6 years of follow-up, the RR of revision for any reason was 1.5 (CI: 1.3–1.7) for MoM bearings compared to MoP bearings. The RR of revision for any reason was higher for the ASR (adjusted RR = 6.4, CI: 5.0–8.1), the Conserve Plus (adjusted RR = 1.7, CI: 1.1–2.5) and “other” acetabular components (adjusted RR = 2.4, CI: 1.5–3.9) than for MoP THA at 6 years of follow-up.Interpretation At medium-term follow-up, the survivorship for cementless stemmed MoM THA was inferior to that for MoP THA, and metal-related problems may cause higher revision rates for MoM bearings with longer follow-up.Wear particles from the polyethylene liner in metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are associated with osteolysis and aseptic loosening of the implant (Jacobs et al. 1994). Surgeons therefore became interested in alternatives such as metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings. The main justification for using large-diameter-head (LDH) MoM bearings in THA was less wear and the hope of lower revision rates. However, a lower risk of revision has only been found for revision due to dislocation (Kostensalo et al. 2013), whereas the total risk of revision has been found to be increased in some studies (Smith et al. 2012, Huang et al. 2013). In addition, LDH MoM was introduced in order to achieve increased range of motion and better function (Burroughs et al. 2005, Davis et al. 2007), but that has not been shown clinically (Penny et al. 2013).Several concerns about the use of MoM bearings in hip surgery have been voiced in recent years: excessive failure rates for certain brands and implant combinations used with MoM components have been reported (Langton et al. 2011, Australian Orthopaedic Association 2013). Some designs are associated with increased frequency of aseptic loosening (Australian Orthopaedic Association 2013), and large head sizes placed on conventional stems may cause taper junction failure (Langton et al. 2012). Exposure to chromium and cobalt may cause adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) (Langton et al. 2010) such as pseudotumors (Pandit et al. 2008) and hypersensivity reactions (Willert et al. 2005) locally in the hip joint. Furthermore, metal ions may be genotoxic (Daley et al. 2004).Only a few population-based studies on MoM bearings in stemmed THAs from hip arthroplasty registries have been published (Smith et al. 2012, Mokka et al. 2013b, Furnes et al. 2014), with only 1 population-based study focusing on causes of revision resulting from specific combinations of acetabular and femoral components (Mokka et al. 2013b). We compared the 6-year revision risk for MoM bearings with that for MoP bearings in cementless stemmed THA. In addition, we studied different designs of stemmed MoM THAs and the causes of revision in a population-based follow-up study using data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). |
