Introduction: Failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have become an area of common focus among surgeons performing hip replacements. Several authors have reported data on the prevalence of these masses, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients after either large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty, with a large variability of rate. To our knowledge, few data are reported on the association of this lesion with the use of small-head diameter MoM. Methods: 15 hips that were revised for ARMD in small-head MoM THA were included in this study. We focused our attention on the difficulties of diagnosis and treatment and also on the histologic aspects of the harvested pathologic tissue. Results: The histological examination of our cases showed a presence of lymphocytic infiltrate suggesting a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the metal of type IV (ALVAL), but different from each other in term of the prevalence of the cellular component. Osteolysis and severe soft tissue damage were also observed. Revision resulted in remission of the lesion and successful implant. Conclusions: Our observation suggests that the evidence of ARMD should be considered even in case of small-head MoM arthroplasty and therefore these patients should be followed scrupulously with 2nd level diagnostic tools such as magnetic resonance imaging with metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS-MRI) and metal ion levels at least once. Further investigations are necessary to establish the real prevalence of this phenomenon in the whole population of small-head MoM THAs.
Introduction: Failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have become an area of common focus among surgeons performing hip replacements. Several authors have reported data on the prevalence of these masses, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients after either large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty, with a large variability of rate. To our knowledge, few data are reported on the association of this lesion with the use of small-head diameter MoM. Methods: 15 hips that were revised for ARMD in small-head MoM THA were included in this study. We focused our attention on the difficulties of diagnosis and treatment and also on the histologic aspects of the harvested pathologic tissue. Results: The histological examination of our cases showed a presence of lymphocytic infiltrate suggesting a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the metal of type IV (ALVAL), but different from each other in term of the prevalence of the cellular component. Osteolysis and severe soft tissue damage were also observed. Revision resulted in remission of the lesion and successful implant. Conclusions: Our observation suggests that the evidence of ARMD should be considered even in case of small-head MoM arthroplasty and therefore these patients should be followed scrupulously with 2nd level diagnostic tools such as magnetic resonance imaging with metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS-MRI) and metal ion levels at least once. Further investigations are necessary to establish the real prevalence of this phenomenon in the whole population of small-head MoM THAs.
Adverse reaction to metal debris after small-head diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: an increasing concern
D’Angelo, Fabio
Investigation
;Tanas, DavideWriting – Original Draft Preparation
;
2018-01-01
Abstract
Introduction: Failures due to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) have become an area of common focus among surgeons performing hip replacements. Several authors have reported data on the prevalence of these masses, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients after either large-diameter head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty, with a large variability of rate. To our knowledge, few data are reported on the association of this lesion with the use of small-head diameter MoM. Methods: 15 hips that were revised for ARMD in small-head MoM THA were included in this study. We focused our attention on the difficulties of diagnosis and treatment and also on the histologic aspects of the harvested pathologic tissue. Results: The histological examination of our cases showed a presence of lymphocytic infiltrate suggesting a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the metal of type IV (ALVAL), but different from each other in term of the prevalence of the cellular component. Osteolysis and severe soft tissue damage were also observed. Revision resulted in remission of the lesion and successful implant. Conclusions: Our observation suggests that the evidence of ARMD should be considered even in case of small-head MoM arthroplasty and therefore these patients should be followed scrupulously with 2nd level diagnostic tools such as magnetic resonance imaging with metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS-MRI) and metal ion levels at least once. Further investigations are necessary to establish the real prevalence of this phenomenon in the whole population of small-head MoM THAs.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
1120700018812993.pdf
non disponibili
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
DRM non definito
Dimensione
908.71 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
908.71 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.