The 2012 Otto Aufranc Award: The Interpretation of Metal Ion Levels in Unilateral and Bilateral Hip Resurfacing
Open Access
- 1 February 2013
- journal article
- other
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
- Vol. 471 (2) , 377-385
Abstract
The interpretation of metal ion concentrations and their role in clinical management of patients with metal-on-metal implants is still controversial. We questioned whether patients undergoing hip resurfacing with no clinical problems could be differentiated from those with clinical (pain, loss of function) and/or radiographic (component malpositioning, migration, bone loss), problems based on metal ion levels, and if there was a threshold metal level that predicted the need for clinical intervention. Furthermore, we asked if patient and implant factors differed between these functional groups. We retrospectively identified 453 unilateral and 139 bilateral patients with ion measurements at minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 4.3 years; range, 1–12.9 years). Patients were designated as well functioning or poorly functioning based on strict criteria. The acceptable upper levels within the well-functioning group were determined from the 75th percentile plus 1.5× interquartile range. The sensitivity and specificity of these levels to predict clinical problems were calculated. Well-functioning group ions were lower than the poorly functioning group ion levels. The acceptable upper levels were: chromium (Cr) 4.6 μg/L, cobalt (Co) 4.0 μg/L unilateral and Cr 7.4 μg/L, Co 5.0 μg/L bilateral. The specificity of these levels in predicting poor function was high (95%) and sensitivity was low (25%). There were more males in the well-functioning group and more females and smaller femoral components in the poorly functioning group. Metal levels higher than these proposed safe upper limits can predict problems with metal-on-metal resurfacings and are important parameters in the management of at-risk patients. Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Keywords
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Metal Ion Interpretation in Resurfacing versus Conventional Hip Arthroplasty and in Whole Blood versus Serum. How should we Interpret Metal Ion Data?HIP International, 2011
- “Asymptomatic” Pseudotumors After Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing ArthroplastyThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2011
- Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacingThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2011
- Reduced Articular Surface of One-piece Cups: A Cause of Runaway Wear and Early FailureClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2010
- The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing versus Large-diameter Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip ArthroplastyClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2010
- Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplastyThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2009
- Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcomeThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2009
- Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophagesin vitroBiomedical Materials, 2009
- Is Patient Selection Important for Hip Resurfacing?Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2009
- Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacementThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2008