The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor

S. Glyn-Jones, A. Roques, A. Taylor, Y. M. Kwon, P. McLardy-Smith, H. S. Gill, W. Walter, M. Tuke, D. Murray

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal arthroplasty-related pseudotumors can cause severe local destruction of bone and soft tissues. The cause of pseudotumors is unknown, although some authors have implicated metal wear debris. The aim of this study was to measure the location and magnitude of wear on resurfacing devices that were retrieved during revision procedures for pseudotumor (the pseudotumor group) and for other reasons (the control group). METHODS: We examined thirty-six hip-resurfacing implants, which were divided into two groups: eighteen implants from patients with a diagnosis of pseudotumor and eighteen control implants. Implant orientation and patient demographics were recorded. Three-dimensional, contactless metrology was used to scan the surface of the femoral and acetabular components to a resolution of 20 nm. Linear and volumetric wear were measured, and the components were examined for evidence of edge wear. RESULTS: There was three times more total linear wear and over six times more total volumetric wear of the femoral and acetabular components in the pseudotumor group as compared with that in the control group. The mean linear wear rate and standard deviation of the femoral components in the pseudotumor group (8.4 +/- 8.7 mum/yr) were significantly greater than those in the control group (2.9 +/- 3.9 mum/yr; p = 0.01). The mean volumetric wear rate of the femoral components was also significantly greater in the pseudotumor group (3.3 +/- 5.7 mm3/yr) than it was in the control group (0.8 +/- 1.2 mm3/yr; p = 0.009). Seventeen of eighteen subjects in the pseudotumor group had edge wear, compared with six of eighteen in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implants that were retrieved because of pseudotumor had a significantly higher wear rate and prevalence of edge wear than the control implants did. There was a strong association between pseudotumor and the high levels of wear debris that are generated during edge-loading. However, not all patients with high wear developed pseudotumors, and not all pseudotumors had high wear; therefore, other factors are most likely involved in the cause of pseudotumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2180-2188
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume
Volume93
Issue number23
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Dec 2011

Fingerprint

Hip
Thigh
Control Groups
Metals
Arthroplasty
Demography
Bone and Bones
Equipment and Supplies
Therapeutics

Cite this

The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor. / Glyn-Jones, S.; Roques, A.; Taylor, A.; Kwon, Y. M.; McLardy-Smith, P.; Gill, H. S.; Walter, W.; Tuke, M.; Murray, D.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume, Vol. 93, No. 23, 07.12.2011, p. 2180-2188.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Glyn-Jones, S, Roques, A, Taylor, A, Kwon, YM, McLardy-Smith, P, Gill, HS, Walter, W, Tuke, M & Murray, D 2011, 'The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor', Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume, vol. 93, no. 23, pp. 2180-2188. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01206
Glyn-Jones, S. ; Roques, A. ; Taylor, A. ; Kwon, Y. M. ; McLardy-Smith, P. ; Gill, H. S. ; Walter, W. ; Tuke, M. ; Murray, D. / The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor. In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume. 2011 ; Vol. 93, No. 23. pp. 2180-2188.
@article{ec64ee4dbc4b40408d09984a43ce81d7,
title = "The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal arthroplasty-related pseudotumors can cause severe local destruction of bone and soft tissues. The cause of pseudotumors is unknown, although some authors have implicated metal wear debris. The aim of this study was to measure the location and magnitude of wear on resurfacing devices that were retrieved during revision procedures for pseudotumor (the pseudotumor group) and for other reasons (the control group). METHODS: We examined thirty-six hip-resurfacing implants, which were divided into two groups: eighteen implants from patients with a diagnosis of pseudotumor and eighteen control implants. Implant orientation and patient demographics were recorded. Three-dimensional, contactless metrology was used to scan the surface of the femoral and acetabular components to a resolution of 20 nm. Linear and volumetric wear were measured, and the components were examined for evidence of edge wear. RESULTS: There was three times more total linear wear and over six times more total volumetric wear of the femoral and acetabular components in the pseudotumor group as compared with that in the control group. The mean linear wear rate and standard deviation of the femoral components in the pseudotumor group (8.4 +/- 8.7 mum/yr) were significantly greater than those in the control group (2.9 +/- 3.9 mum/yr; p = 0.01). The mean volumetric wear rate of the femoral components was also significantly greater in the pseudotumor group (3.3 +/- 5.7 mm3/yr) than it was in the control group (0.8 +/- 1.2 mm3/yr; p = 0.009). Seventeen of eighteen subjects in the pseudotumor group had edge wear, compared with six of eighteen in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implants that were retrieved because of pseudotumor had a significantly higher wear rate and prevalence of edge wear than the control implants did. There was a strong association between pseudotumor and the high levels of wear debris that are generated during edge-loading. However, not all patients with high wear developed pseudotumors, and not all pseudotumors had high wear; therefore, other factors are most likely involved in the cause of pseudotumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.",
author = "S. Glyn-Jones and A. Roques and A. Taylor and Kwon, {Y. M.} and P. McLardy-Smith and Gill, {H. S.} and W. Walter and M. Tuke and D. Murray",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
day = "7",
doi = "10.2106/JBJS.J.01206",
language = "English",
volume = "93",
pages = "2180--2188",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The in vivo linear and volumetric wear of hip resurfacing implants revised for pseudotumor

AU - Glyn-Jones, S.

AU - Roques, A.

AU - Taylor, A.

AU - Kwon, Y. M.

AU - McLardy-Smith, P.

AU - Gill, H. S.

AU - Walter, W.

AU - Tuke, M.

AU - Murray, D.

PY - 2011/12/7

Y1 - 2011/12/7

N2 - BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal arthroplasty-related pseudotumors can cause severe local destruction of bone and soft tissues. The cause of pseudotumors is unknown, although some authors have implicated metal wear debris. The aim of this study was to measure the location and magnitude of wear on resurfacing devices that were retrieved during revision procedures for pseudotumor (the pseudotumor group) and for other reasons (the control group). METHODS: We examined thirty-six hip-resurfacing implants, which were divided into two groups: eighteen implants from patients with a diagnosis of pseudotumor and eighteen control implants. Implant orientation and patient demographics were recorded. Three-dimensional, contactless metrology was used to scan the surface of the femoral and acetabular components to a resolution of 20 nm. Linear and volumetric wear were measured, and the components were examined for evidence of edge wear. RESULTS: There was three times more total linear wear and over six times more total volumetric wear of the femoral and acetabular components in the pseudotumor group as compared with that in the control group. The mean linear wear rate and standard deviation of the femoral components in the pseudotumor group (8.4 +/- 8.7 mum/yr) were significantly greater than those in the control group (2.9 +/- 3.9 mum/yr; p = 0.01). The mean volumetric wear rate of the femoral components was also significantly greater in the pseudotumor group (3.3 +/- 5.7 mm3/yr) than it was in the control group (0.8 +/- 1.2 mm3/yr; p = 0.009). Seventeen of eighteen subjects in the pseudotumor group had edge wear, compared with six of eighteen in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implants that were retrieved because of pseudotumor had a significantly higher wear rate and prevalence of edge wear than the control implants did. There was a strong association between pseudotumor and the high levels of wear debris that are generated during edge-loading. However, not all patients with high wear developed pseudotumors, and not all pseudotumors had high wear; therefore, other factors are most likely involved in the cause of pseudotumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AB - BACKGROUND: Metal-on-metal arthroplasty-related pseudotumors can cause severe local destruction of bone and soft tissues. The cause of pseudotumors is unknown, although some authors have implicated metal wear debris. The aim of this study was to measure the location and magnitude of wear on resurfacing devices that were retrieved during revision procedures for pseudotumor (the pseudotumor group) and for other reasons (the control group). METHODS: We examined thirty-six hip-resurfacing implants, which were divided into two groups: eighteen implants from patients with a diagnosis of pseudotumor and eighteen control implants. Implant orientation and patient demographics were recorded. Three-dimensional, contactless metrology was used to scan the surface of the femoral and acetabular components to a resolution of 20 nm. Linear and volumetric wear were measured, and the components were examined for evidence of edge wear. RESULTS: There was three times more total linear wear and over six times more total volumetric wear of the femoral and acetabular components in the pseudotumor group as compared with that in the control group. The mean linear wear rate and standard deviation of the femoral components in the pseudotumor group (8.4 +/- 8.7 mum/yr) were significantly greater than those in the control group (2.9 +/- 3.9 mum/yr; p = 0.01). The mean volumetric wear rate of the femoral components was also significantly greater in the pseudotumor group (3.3 +/- 5.7 mm3/yr) than it was in the control group (0.8 +/- 1.2 mm3/yr; p = 0.009). Seventeen of eighteen subjects in the pseudotumor group had edge wear, compared with six of eighteen in the control group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implants that were retrieved because of pseudotumor had a significantly higher wear rate and prevalence of edge wear than the control implants did. There was a strong association between pseudotumor and the high levels of wear debris that are generated during edge-loading. However, not all patients with high wear developed pseudotumors, and not all pseudotumors had high wear; therefore, other factors are most likely involved in the cause of pseudotumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=83455163828&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22159853

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01206

U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.J.01206

DO - 10.2106/JBJS.J.01206

M3 - Article

VL - 93

SP - 2180

EP - 2188

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 23

ER -