Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2022; 89(5):323-331 | DOI: 10.55095/achot2022/052

Our Experience with ICON Hip Resurfacing SystemOriginal papers

T. TRČ, E. ©«ASTNÝ*, Z. KOPEČNÝ, P. KOS, J. PŘIDAL, V. HAVLAS
Klinika dětské a dospělé ortopedie a traumatologie 2. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy a Fakultní nemocnice v Motole, Praha

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:
Our study aimed to assess the mid-term outcomes and complications with the ICON hip resurfacing system and to carry out a detailed analysis of pitfalls and risks associated with pairing the bearing surfaces of metal-on-metal hip implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:
A total of 52 hip joints were assessed in 43 patients who received the ICON hip resurfacing system at our department between 2009 and 2013. The cohort included 34 men and 9 women. Their age at the time of primary surgery ranged from 34 to 67 years, with the mean age of 51.8 years. The mean follow-up was 7.6 years. The evaluation focused on the position and osseointegration of both components, bone remodelling around the implant, and signs of potential aseptic loosening. The functional status of the hip was assessed by Harris Hip Score.

RESULTS:
The primary stability of both components was always good, there were no femoral neck fractures reported in our cohort. All the acetabular components were stable, showing appropriate osseointegration, with no radiolucent zones or signs of osteolysis around them. There was not a single case of the femoral component stem being in a biomechanically disadvantageous varus position. In zone I and III according to Beaulé, cancellous bone osteolysis developed in two patients. The narrowing of the femoral neck below the end of the femoral component, compared to postoperative X-rays, achieved the mean value of 1.3% according to Grammatopolouse. The HHS increased from 64 to 95.5 points. An excellent outcome was observed in 48 joints, whereas the outcome of the remaining 4 joints was very good. The mean survival rate of the resurfacing hip implant calculated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis achieved 100%. The cobalt and chromium levels in the blood of patients did not exceed the reference physiological value.

DISCUSSION:
The resurfacing system enables to preserve the bone tissue of the metaphysis and a part of the femoral head. The reduced mechanical endurance of the peripheral part of femoral components smaller in size caused by implant malposition resulted in fatal consequences in the ASR system. Greater range of motion conditioned by the design of the resurfacing system led to a mechanical wear, with a significant increase in the concentration of metal particles in the effective joint space. The elevated levels of cobalt and chromium ions in some patients induced delayed-type hypersensitivity with subsequent development of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis associated lesions presented as peri-acetabular changes (pseudotumors to osteolysis) with subsequent failure of implant fixation. We have not observed this complication in the ICON system as yet. In patients suffering from hip pain after the resurfacing hip arthroplasty and simultaneous high chromium and cobalt blood levels, pelvic CT/MRI is indicated with reduction of artefacts around the metal material. Surgical treatment of soft tissue affections, bone defects and reimplantation using conventional or revisioncementless components is a possible treatment option.

CONCLUSIONS:
The ideal patient indicated for hip resurfacing is a physically active man under 60 years of age (with a femoral head size of 54-60 mm), with primary or secondary osteoarthritis, no joint deformity, with a good quality bone tissue in the femoral neck and head region. As for the functional performance, the resurfacing system allows the patients a large range of motion with very good joint stability immediately after surgery. Despite that, the metal-on-metal tribological pairing must be approached with caution. The risk of developing lesions associated with ALVAL is unpredictable. In our cohort of patients with ICON hip resurfacing system, mostly excellent outcomes with minimum complications were reported provided the indication criteria and the correct surgical procedure had been complied with.

Keywords: hip resurfacing system, metal articulating surfaces, adverse reaction to metal particles, aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis associated lesions, pseudotumor

Published: October 15, 2022  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
TRČ T, ©«ASTNÝ E, KOPEČNÝ Z, KOS P, PŘIDAL J, HAVLAS V. Our Experience with ICON Hip Resurfacing System. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech.. 2022;89(5):323-331. doi: 10.55095/achot2022/052. PubMed PMID: 36322031.
Download citation

References

  1. Borgwardt A, Borgwardt L, Zerahn B, Fabricius SD, Ribel-Madsen S. Clinical performance ofthe ASR and resusurfacing implants - 7 years follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:993-997. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement - incidence and metod of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629-1632. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Brown C, Fisher J, Ingham E. Biological effects of clinically relevant wear particles from metal-on-metal hip prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 2006;220:355-369. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Cooke NJ, Rodgers L, Rawlings D, McCaskie AW, Holland JP. Bone density of the femoral neck following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:660-665. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. De Smet K, De Haan R, Calistri A, Campbell PA, Ebramzadeh E, Pattyn C, Gill HS. Metal ion measurement as a diagnostic tool to identify problems with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(Suppl 4):202-208. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. DeLee, JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121: 20-32. Go to original source...
  7. Engh CA, Kasein P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107-128. Go to original source...
  8. Firkins PJ, Tipper JL, Saadatzadeh MR, Ingham E, Stone MH, Farrar R, Fisher J. Quantitative analysis of wear and weardebris from metal-on-metal hip prostheses tested in a physiological hip joint simulator. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001;11:143-157.
  9. Frew N, Johnson G. Survivalofthe Birmingham hip resurfacing in young men up to 13 years post-operatively. Acta Orthop Belg. 2017;83:67-73. Go to PubMed...
  10. Gerhardt DM, Smolders JM, Rijnders TA, Hol A, van Susante JL. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to five years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:308-314. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Oxford Hip and Knee Group, Murray DW, Gill HS. The relationship between head-neck ratio and pseudotumour formation in metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1527-1534. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Gross TP, Liu F. Is there added risk in resurfacing a femoral head with cysts? J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:55. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Gross TP, Liu F. Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012;7:1. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Hannemann F, Hartmann A, Schmitt J, Lützner J, Seidler A, Campbell P, Delaunay CP, Drexler H, Ettema HB, García-Cimbrelo E, Huberti H, Knahr K, Kunze J, Langton DJ, Lauer W, Learmonth I, Lohmann CH, Morlock M, Wimmer MA, Zagra L, Günther KP. European multidisciplinary consensus statement on the use and monitoring of metal-on-metal bearings for total hip replacement and hip resurfacing. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99:263-271. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Hart AJ, Sabah SA, Sampson B, Skinner JA, Powell JJ, Palla L, Pajamäki KJ, Puolakka T, Reito A, Eskelinen A. Surveillance of patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and total hip prostheses: a prospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between blood metal ion levels and implant failure. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1091-1099. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Hunter TJA, Moores TS, Morley D, Manoharan G, Collier SG, Shaylor PJ. 10-year results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: a non-designer case series. Hip Int. 2018;28:50-52. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Gandhi JN, Sidaginamale R, Mereddy P, Lord J, Nargol AV. Accelerating failure rate of the ASR total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1011-1016. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Jameson SS, Lord J, Van Orsouw M, Holland JP, Nargol AV, De Smet KA. Adversereaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:164-171. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Lewis CG, Sunderman FW Jr. Metal carcinogenesis in total point arthroplasty. Animal models. Clin Orthop 1996;329Suppl:S264-268. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Revell MP, Pynsent PB. Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:147-153. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Marker DR, Strimbu K, McGrath MS, Zywiel MG, Mont MA. Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty - review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:120-127. Go to PubMed...
  22. Ortiz-Declet VR, Iacobelli DA, Yuen LC, Perets I, Chen AW, Domb BG. Birmingham hip resurfacing vs total hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair comparison of clinical outcomes. J Artroplasty. 2017;32:3647-3651. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Park SH, Lu Z, Hastings RS, Campbell PA, Ebramzadeh E. Five hundred fifty-five retrieved metal-on-metal hip replacements of a single design show a wide range of wear, surface features, and histopathologic reactions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:261-278. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Pelt CE, Bergeson AG, Anderson LA, Stoddard GJ, Peters CL. Serum metal ion concentrations after unilateral vs bilateral large-head metal-on-metal primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty.2011;26:1494-1500. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Reito A, Puolakka T, Elo P, Pajamäki J, Eskelinen A. High prevalence of adverse reactions to metal debris in small-headed ASR hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2954-2961. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Sabah SA, Mitchell AW, Henckel J, Sandison A, Skinner JA, Hart AJ. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in painful metal-on-metal hips: a prospective study. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:71-76. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Porter M, Blom AW. Risk of cancer in first seven years after metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with other bearings and general population: linkage study between the National Joint Registry of England and Wales and hospital episode statistics. BMJ. 2012;344:e2383. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Koster G, Lohmann CH. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:28-36. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...