Metal-on-metal
As a pioneer in hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal bearing technology, Corin aims to provide clarity and perspective on the many publications that relate to hip resurfacing and large diameter metal-on-metal articulations. Corin has been developing and manufacturing metal-on-metal bearing surfaces for over 20 years resulting in significant technical and clinical experience with this technology throughout this period.
Prior to the development of third generation metal-on-metal articulations, there was no viable long-term, bone conserving solution for challenging, active patients. The addition of this technology made an important contribution to the treatment of this patient group. Third generation metal-on-metal hip resurfacings and large diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacements have been available for over ten years and the published data shows a high survivorship for young, active patients treated with these articulations – more than 95% at 8 years(1,2,3).
Over the last two years there has been much debate relating to the subject of adverse reactions to metal-on-metal wear debris (ARMD). The literature indicates that patient selection and component positioning influence the success of metal-on-metal articulations(4,5,6,7,8,9).
We believe that metal-on-metal hip resurfacing remains a safe and effective surgical intervention for well-indicated patients and Cormet continues to form an important part of our continuum of care in hip replacements. ‘Metal-on-Metal – A clinical overview’ aims to provide a balanced perspective and summary of the publications both against and in support of hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal articulations – click here to download.
References:
1. Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: AN INDEPENDENT SERIES’. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2008 Apr;90(4):436-41.
2. Khan M, Kuiper JH, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson J. Birmingham Hip Arthroplasty: Five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 2009 Oct; 24(7):1044-50.
3. Amstutz HC, Gruen T, Chapel W, Le Duff MJ, Wisk L. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing – the first 100 hips with a minimium 10 year follow-up. AAOS 2010:Podium Presentation, paper 671.
4. Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2005 Apr;87(4):463-4.
5. Grammatopolous G, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2009 Aug;91(8):1019-24.
6. Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Doll H, Gill HS, Murray DW. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2009 Dec;91(12):1566-74.
7. Hart AJ, Sabah S, Henckel J, Lewis A, Cobb J, Sampson B, Mitchell A, Skinner JA. The painful metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2009 Jun;91(6):738-44.
8. Stulberg BN, Trier KK, Naughton M, Zadzilka JD. Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 2008 Aug;90(suppl 3):21-6.
9. Ollivere B, Darrah C, Barker T, Nolan J, Porteous MJ. Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2009 Aug;91(8):1025- 30.
Important: Not all products are available or cleared for distribution in all international markets. For more details, please contact your local subsidiary or distributor by visiting the Corin worldwide section.
