Metal-on-metal hips
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.
For UK patients only, please see the BOA website for further guidance regarding metal-on-metal hips:
British Orthopaedic Association
http://www.boa.ac.uk/en/news/whats-new/#item_246231
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: The information and guidance provided here is general in nature and should not be considered as medical advice in any way. You should always seek detailed advice from a qualified medical practitioner.
