Three-Year Prospective Study of Serum and Urine Metal Levels In Patients With Metal-on-Metal Total Hip and Surface Arthroplasty

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-304
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Jacobs ◽  
A.K. Skipor ◽  
P.A. Campbell ◽  
S. Gitelis ◽  
R.A. Berger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Metal Levels ◽  
Surface Arthroplasty ◽  
Serum And Urine

scholarly journals Prospective study on serum metal levels in patients with metal-on-metal lumbar disc arthroplasty

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew F. Gornet ◽  
J. K. Burkus ◽  
M. L. Harper ◽  
F. W. Chan ◽  
A. K. Skipor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Lumbar Disc ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Metal Levels ◽  
Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty

scholarly journals Comparison between component designs with different femoral head size in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty; multicenter randomized prospective study

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 228-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wataru Ando ◽  
Kengo Yamamoto ◽  
Takashi Atsumi ◽  
Satoshi Tamaoki ◽  
Kazuhiro Oinuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Head ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Head Size ◽  
Femoral Head Size ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

scholarly journals Uncemented versus cemented arthroplasty after metal-on-metal total hip replacement in patients with femoral neck fractures: a retrospective study

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. 030006052110122
Author(s):  
Wenlu Liu ◽  
Huanyi Lin ◽  
Xianshang Zeng ◽  
Meiji Chen ◽  
Weiwei Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Femoral Neck Fractures ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of primary metal-on-metal total hip replacement (MoM-TR) converted to uncemented total hip replacement (UTR) or cemented total hip replacement (CTR) in patients with femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B/C). Methods Patient data of 234 UTR or CTR revisions after primary MoM-TR failure from March 2007 to January 2018 were retrospectively identified. Clinical outcomes, including the Harris hip score (HHS) and key orthopaedic complications, were collected at 3, 6, and 12 months following conversion and every 12 months thereafter. Results The mean follow-up was 84.12 (67–100) months for UTR and 84.23 (66–101) months for CTR. At the last follow-up, the HHS was better in the CTR- than UTR-treated patients. Noteworthy dissimilarities were correspondingly detected in the key orthopaedic complication rates (16.1% for CTR vs. 47.4% for UTR). Statistically significant differences in specific orthopaedic complications were also detected in the re-revision rate (10.3% for UTR vs. 2.5% for CTR), prosthesis loosening rate (16.3% for UTR vs. 5.9% for CTR), and periprosthetic fracture rate (12.0% for UTR vs. 4.2% for CTR). Conclusion In the setting of revision of failed primary MoM-TR, CTR may demonstrate advantages over UTR in improving functional outcomes and reducing key orthopaedic complications.

scholarly journals Small-head metal on metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high rate of complication and reoperation at mid-term follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 205031212110147
Author(s):  
Nobuhiko Sumiyoshi ◽  
Kazuhiro Oinuma ◽  
Yoko Miura
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Small Diameter ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Metal Debris ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Small Head

Background: Adverse reactions to metal debris are significant complications after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Recently, late appearances of adverse reactions to metal debris and subsequent need for reoperations have been reported with small-diameter head metal-on-metal devices. We retrospectively investigated mid-term clinical outcomes of small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Methods: We reviewed 159 hips in 139 patients who had a small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (M2a Taper; Biomet, Warsaw, IN) with a minimum 5-year follow-up and documented postoperative complications. Results: Focal osteolysis in either the femur or acetabulum was observed in 12 hips (7.5%, 44 months after surgery on average), with pseudotumor observed in 8 hips (5%, 120 months after surgery on average). Four hips (2.5%) had dislocations (84 months after surgery on average) and six hips (3.8%, 122 months after surgery on average) underwent reoperation. Conclusion: Small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty is associated with a high degree of complications at mid-term follow-up period. Considering this, we discourage the use of metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty regardless of head size.

Safe Upper Limits of Serum Cobalt and Chromium Levels for the M2a-Magnum Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Bearing: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maarten C. Koper ◽  
Brechtje Hesseling ◽  
Wim E. Tuinebreijer ◽  
Hans van der Linden ◽  
Nina M.C. Mathijssen
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Metal On Metal ◽  
Upper Limits ◽  
Serum Cobalt
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document