BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was twofold: first, to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference in the metal ion levels among three different large-head metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip systems. The second objective was to assess whether position of the implanted prostheses, patient demographics or factors such as activity levels influence overall blood metal ion levels and whether there is a difference in the functional outcomes between the systems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional cohort study, three different metal-on-metal total hip systems were assessed: two monoblock heads, the Durom socket (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) and the Birmingham socket (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA), and one modular metal-on-metal total hip system (Pinnacle, Depuy Orthopedics, Warsaw, IN, USA). Fifty-four patients were recruited, with a mean age of 59.7 years and a mean follow-up time of 41 months (12 to 60). Patients were evaluated clinically, radiologically and biochemically. Statistical analysis was performed on all collected data to assess any differences between the three groups in terms of overall blood metal ion levels and also to identify whether there was any other factor within the group demographics and outcomes that could influence the mean levels of Co and Cr. RESULTS: Although the functional outcome scores were similar in all three groups, the blood metal ion levels in the larger monoblock large heads (Durom, Birmingham sockets) were significantly raised compared with those of the Pinnacle group. In addition, the metal ion levels were not found to have a statistically significant relationship to the anteversion or abduction angles as measured on the radiographs. CONCLUSIONS: When considering a MOM THR, the use of a monoblock large-head system leads to higher elevations in whole blood metal ions and offers no advantage over a smaller head modular system.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.|We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.|We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).|The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.|Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoM HRA) has emerged as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for younger active patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Birmingham hip resurfacing is the most common MoM HRA in Alberta, and is therefore compared with conventional THA. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the expected cost-utility of MoM HRA versus THA, in younger patients with OA, using a decision analytic model with a 15-year time horizon. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the expected cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of MoM HRA versus THA from a health care payer perspective. The base case considered patients with OA aged 50 years; men comprised 65.9% of the cohort. Sensitivity analyses evaluated cohort age, utility values, failure probabilities, and treatment costs. Data were derived from the Hip Improvement Project and the Hip and Knee Replacement Pilot databases in Alberta, the 2010 National Joint Replacement Registry of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, and the literature. RESULTS: In the base case, THA was dominated by MoM HRA (incremental mean costs of -$583 and incremental mean QALYs of 0.079). In subgroup analyses, THA remained dominated when cohort age was 40 years instead of 50 years or when only men were assessed. THA dominated when the cohort age was 60 years or when only women were assessed. Results were sensitive to utilities, surgery costs, and MoM HRA revision and conversion probabilities. At a willingness-to-pay of Can $50,000/QALY, there was a 58% probability that MoM HRA is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that, on average, MoM HRA was preferred to THA for younger and male patients, but THA is still a reasonable option if the patient or clinician prefers given the small absolute differences between the options and the confidence ellipses around the cost-effectiveness estimates.

This prospective observational study of 499 patients with hip resurfacing and 255 patients with total hip arthroplasty compared outcomes for 2 years. We used propensity scores to identify matched cohorts of 118 patients with hip resurfacing and 118 patients with total hip arthroplasty. We used these cohorts to compare improvements in the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index and Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36 physical function component (SF-36 PF) scores at 3 months and at 1 and 2 years postsurgery. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements from baseline in WOMAC and SF-36 PF. Improvements in SF-36 PF were greater for patients with hip resurfacing than for patients with total hip arthroplasty 1 and 2 years postsurgery; improvements in WOMAC were similar for both groups. The clinical significance of this observation needs further investigation.

Despite various health system improvements across Alberta, the wait times benchmark was not being met for all patients requiring hip or knee arthroplasty. Alberta Health Services Bone and Joint Clinical Network working groups, in collaboration with other provincial organizations, gained consensus on the development and implementation of a set of provincial Wait Times Rules. These rules standardize the definition and measurement of data elements specific to joint replacement and distinguish between voluntary (patient-related) versus involuntary (healthcare system–related) wait times. Collectively, this information will help identify trends in wait times and more accurately show where wait times can be reduced.