What Causes Unexplained Pain in Patients With Metal-on metal Hip Devices? A Retrieval, Histologic, and Imaging Analysis

BackgroundAdverse tissue reactions associated with metal-on-metal (MOM) hips are common in resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty (THA) designs. The etiology of these reactions in painful, well-positioned arthroplasties is inconsistently described.Questions/purposesThe purposes of this study were to compare the (1) articular wear rates; (2) histologic findings; (3) synovial response on MRI; and (4) graded intraoperative tissue damage between well-positioned, MOM hips revised for unexplained pain and MOM hips revised for other reasons and to (5) determine whether the presence of a taper junction on a MOM articulation affects these four parameters in unexplained pain.MethodsWe retrospectively studied 88 patients (94 hips) who had undergone revision of either a hip resurfacing or a large-head (> 36 mm) THA. Thirty-five hips revised for unexplained pain were compared with a control group of 59 hips revised for other causes. Articular wear was measured using three-dimensional contactless metrology and histologic analysis was performed using the aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) score. Preoperative MRI was performed on 57 patients to determine synovial volumes and thicknesses. Tissue damage was graded from intraoperative reports.ResultsArticular wear rates in the unexplained pain group were lower than in the control group (median 2.6 μm/year versus 12.8 μm/year, p < 0.001). Sixty-six percent of patients in the unexplained pain group had histologic confirmation of ALVAL compared with 19% in the control group (p < 0.001). The synovial thickness on MRI was higher in the unexplained pain group (p = 0.04) and was highly predictive of ALVAL. Severe intraoperative tissue damage was noted in more cases in the unexplained pain group (p = 0.01). There were no differences in articular wear, histology, MRI, and tissue damage between resurfacings and THAs revised for unexplained pain.ConclusionsUnexplained pain in patients with well-positioned MOM hips warrants further investigation with MRI to look for features predictive of ALVAL. Tissue destruction in these cases does not appear to be related to high bearing wear or the presence of a taper.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  J. Lewis,et al.  Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. , 1978, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  H. Potter,et al.  MRI Predicts ALVAL and Tissue Damage in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  T. Joyce,et al.  Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[4]  P. Campbell,et al.  Failure modes of 433 metal-on-metal hip implants: how, why, and wear. , 2011, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[5]  Johann Henckel,et al.  Pseudotumors Are Common in Well-positioned Low-wearing Metal-on-Metal Hips , 2012, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.

[6]  Georg Reinisch,et al.  Presence of corrosion products and hypersensitivity-associated reactions in periprosthetic tissue after aseptic loosening of total hip replacements with metal bearing surfaces. , 2009, Acta biomaterialia.

[7]  C. Case,et al.  Early Failure of the Ultima Metal-on-metal Total Hip Replacement in the Presence of Normal Plain Radiographs Their Production May Provoke a Hypersensitivity Reaction, Resulting in an Immune Response , 2022 .

[8]  P. Campbell,et al.  Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  Sue Leurgans,et al.  A Multicenter Retrieval Study of the Taper Interfaces of Modular Hip Prostheses , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  J. Henckel,et al.  Insufficient Acetabular Version Increases Blood Metal Ion Levels after Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  Hollis G Potter,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  H. Potter,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of joint arthroplasty. , 2006, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[13]  T. Joyce,et al.  Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  P. Campbell,et al.  Mixing and matching causing taper wear: corrosion associated with pseudotumour formation. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[15]  T. Joyce,et al.  Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  K. Koch,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging findings in symptomatic versus asymptomatic subjects following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  D. Langton,et al.  Adverse reactions to metal debris: histopathological features of periprosthetic soft tissue reactions seen in association with failed metal on metal hip arthroplasties , 2012, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[18]  Christoph H. Lohmann,et al.  Corrosion at the Cone/Taper Interface Leads to Failure of Large-diameter Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasties , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[19]  P. Cann,et al.  Retrieval analysis of 240 metal-on-metal hip components, comparing modular total hip replacement with hip resurfacing. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[20]  S. Kurtz,et al.  The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  V. Tolo.  Stability and change in 2012. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[22]  C. Lohmann,et al.  Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[23]  A. Roques,et al.  3D linear and volumetric wear measurement on artificial hip joints—Validation of a new methodology , 2010 .

[24]  H. Gill,et al.  Analysis of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants revised due to pseudotumours. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  T J Joyce,et al.  Early failure of metal-on-metal bearings in hip resurfacing and large-diameter total hip replacement: A consequence of excess wear. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[26]  H. Gill,et al.  Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of clinically relevant cobalt nanoparticles and ions on macrophages in vitro , 2009, Biomedical materials.

[27]  D W Murray,et al.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[28]  P. Noble,et al.  Understanding why metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties fail: a comparison between patients with well-functioning and revised birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasties. AAOS exhibit selection. , 2012, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume.

[29]  J. Henckel,et al.  The painful metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[30]  A. Liddle,et al.  Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  R. D. de Steiger,et al.  Large diameter metal on metal articulations. Comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[32]  R. D. de Steiger,et al.  Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[33]  R. Berger,et al.  Corrosion at the head-neck taper as a cause for adverse local tissue reactions after total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  B. Masri,et al.  The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing versus Large-diameter Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[35]  P. Campbell,et al.  Complications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2011, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[36]  Edward Ebramzadeh,et al.  Histological Features of Pseudotumor-like Tissues From Metal-on-Metal Hips , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[37]  M. Cross,et al.  Measuring Acetabular Component Version After THA: CT or Plain Radiograph? , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[38]  H. Gill,et al.  The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[39]  B. Masri,et al.  Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[40]  P. Tarassoli,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacement. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[41]  S. Bhatnagar,et al.  Cup anteversion in hip resurfacing: validation of EBRA and the presentation of a simple clinical grading system. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[42]  M. Duff,et al.  Socket Position Determines Hip Resurfacing 10-Year Survivorship , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[43]  H. Gill,et al.  The correlation of wear with histological features after failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[44]  J. Henckel,et al.  The relationship between the angle of version and rate of wear of retrieved metal-on-metal resurfacings: a prospective, CT-based study. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[45]  S. Jones,et al.  The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of raised plasma metal ion levels in the diagnosis of adverse reaction to metal debris in symptomatic patients with a metal-on-metal arthroplasty of the hip. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[46]  C. Heisel,et al.  Characterization of the running-in period in total hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an in vivo and in vitro metal ion analysis. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.