Hypersensitivity to metals in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a prospective study of one hundred and thirty five lymphocyte transformation tests.

BACKGROUND: Metal allergy remains a controversial topic in the orthopaedic community. It is not known if or to what degree metal sensitivity contributes to inflammatory soft tissue failures, unexplained residual pain, or clinical complications after total joint replacement with metal prostheses. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy of the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients after receiving a metal joint replacement. Our study cohort consists of 135 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty cases performed between 2013 and 2015. All study patients had an LTT preoperatively. We retrospectively analyzed clinical outcomes and failures for our cohort. RESULTS: There was no difference in LTT reactivity between men and women. Of the 135 patients tested, 46 (34.1% of cohort) tested positive to at least one of the materials comprising their implant, and 78 patients (57.8%) had at least one reactive score to any component of the LTT. After a minimum follow-up of two years, we did not observe an allergic response to the implant in any patients. There were no failures requiring revision. We observed a 2.2% rate of moderate residual pain; no patients with residual pain tested positive for metal sensitivity. When patients with moderate-high LTT reactivity (30.4% of cohort) were compared to the remainder of the study group, there was no difference in HHS or UCLA activity score. There was no correlation between blood metal ion levels and LTT reactivity. CONCLUSION: We were unable to prove any predictive value of the LTT. We failed to identify hypersensitivity to metals in patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Optimizing Acetabular Component Bone Ingrowth: The Wedge-Fit Bone Preparation Method.

We investigate the efficacy of a modified acetabular bone-preparation technique in reducing the incidence of two clinical problems identified in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The first issue is failure due to lack of bone ingrowth into the acetabular component. The second is a newly recognized phenomenon of early cup shift. We hypothesize that these issues might be resolved by using a "wedge-fit method", in which the component wedges into the peripheral acetabular bone rather than bottoming out and potentially toggling on the apex of the cup. Prior to November 2011, all acetabula were reamed 1 mm under and prepared with a press-fit of the porous coated acetabular component. After November 2011, we adjusted reaming by bone density. In "soft bone" (T-score <-1.0), we underreamed acetabula by 1 mm less than the outer diameter of the cup, as was previously done in all cases. For T-scores greater than -1.0, we reamed line-to-line. Additionally, we began performing an "apex relief" starting June 2012 in all cases by removing 2 mm of apex bone with a small reamer after using the largest reamer. Failure of acetabular ingrowth occurred in 0.5% of cases before the wedge-fit method and <0.1% after. Rate of cup shift was reduced from 1.1% to 0.4%. The rate of unexplained pain between 2 and 4 years postoperatively also declined significantly from 2.6% to 1.3%. Our evidence suggests that wedge-fit acetabular preparation improves initial implant stability, leading to fewer cases of early cup shift, unexplained pain, and acetabular ingrowth failure.

Femoral Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An 11-Year Retrospective Comparison of 4013 Cases.

BACKGROUND: The optimal femoral fixation method remains unclear. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (739 hips) with cemented femoral components; group 2 (3274 hips) with uncemented femoral components. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, and radiographic measurements. Groups were consecutive, so cemented cases had longer follow-up. However, all patients from both groups were at least 2 years out from surgery. Two-year clinical and radiographic data were compared. Longer-term comparison data as well as Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves specifically focusing on femoral failure modes were analyzed. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier 10-year implant survivorship using nontraumatic femoral failure as an end point was 98.9% for the cemented and 100% for the uncemented femoral component. The uncemented, group 2 cases showed a significantly lower raw failure rate (1.1% vs 4.6%), 2-year failure rate (0.8% vs 2.8%), 2-year femoral failure rate (0.4% vs 0.9%), and a lower combined rate of femoral complications and failures (0.6% vs 1.8%). In cases that did not fail, patient mean clinical scores, pain scores, and combined range of motion were all significantly better for group 2. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that in the fully porous-coated ReCap device, uncemented femoral fixation is superior to cemented fixation at 11 years follow-up (0.0% vs 1.1% late femoral loosening) in this single-surgeon cohort. Early femoral fractures also reduced from 0.8% to 0.3%, but this may be partially or completely due to a new bone density management program. This study demonstrates better femoral implant survivorship for the uncemented device compared to the cemented femoral resurfacing component for this implant design.