Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

The Effectiveness of Blood Metal Ions in Identifying Patients with Unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris

Matharu, Gulraj S. BSc(Hons), MBChB, MRCS, MRes; Berryman, Fiona BSc(Hons), PhD; Brash, Lesley MSc, RN; Pynsent, Paul B. PhD; Treacy, Ronan B.C. FRCS(Tr&Orth); Dunlop, David J. FRCS(Tr&Orth)

Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume: 20 April 2016 - Volume 98 - Issue 8 - p 617–626
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00340
Scientific Articles
Supplementary Content

Background: We investigated whether blood metal ions could effectively identify patients with metal-on-metal hip implants with two common designs (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR] and Corail-Pinnacle) who were at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris.

Methods: This single-center, prospective study involved 598 patients with unilateral hip implants (309 patients with the BHR implant and 289 patients with the Corail-Pinnacle implant) undergoing whole blood metal ion sampling at a mean time of 6.9 years. Patients were classified into two groups, one that had adverse reactions to metal debris (those who had to undergo revision for adverse reactions to metal debris or those with adverse reactions to metal debris on imaging; n = 46) and one that did not (n = 552). Three metal ion parameters (cobalt, chromium, and cobalt-chromium ratio) were compared between groups. Optimal metal ion thresholds for identifying patients with adverse reactions to metal debris were determined using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Results: All ion parameters were significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the patients who had adverse reactions to metal debris compared with those who did not. Cobalt maximized the area under the curve for patients with the BHR implant (90.5%) and those with the Corail-Pinnacle implant (79.6%). For patients with the BHR implant, the area under the curve for cobalt was significantly greater than that for the cobalt-chromium ratio (p = 0.0005), but it was not significantly greater than that for chromium (p = 0.8483). For the patients with the Corail-Pinnacle implant, the area under the curve for cobalt was significantly greater than that for chromium (p = 0.0004), but it was similar to that for the cobalt-chromium ratio (p = 0.8139). Optimal blood metal ion thresholds for identifying adverse reactions to metal debris varied between the two different implants. When using cobalt, the optimal threshold for identifying adverse reactions to metal debris was 2.15 μg/L for the BHR group and 3.57 μg/L for the Corail-Pinnacle group. These thresholds had good sensitivities (88.5% for the BHR group and 80.0% for the Corail-Pinnacle group) and specificities (84.5% for the BHR group and 76.2% for the Corail-Pinnacle group), high negative predictive values (98.8% for the BHR group and 98.1% for the Corail-Pinnacle group), and low positive predictive values (34.3% for the BHR group and 20.0% for the Corail-Pinnacle group). The authority thresholds proposed by the United States (3 μg/L and 10 μg/L) and the United Kingdom (7 μg/L) missed more patients with adverse reactions to metal debris at 2.0% to 4.7% (twelve to twenty-eight patients) compared with our implant-specific thresholds at 1.2% (seven patients missed).

Conclusions: Patients who underwent metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty performed with unilateral BHR or Corail-Pinnacle implants and who had blood metal ions below our implant-specific thresholds were at low risk of adverse reactions to metal debris. These thresholds could be used to rationalize follow-up resources in asymptomatic patients. Analysis of cobalt alone is acceptable. Implant-specific thresholds were more effective than currently recommended fixed authority thresholds for identifying patients at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris requiring further investigation.

Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom

E-mail address for G.S. Matharu: gsm@doctors.org.uk

E-mail address for F. Berryman: fiona.berryman@nhs.net

E-mail address for L. Brash: lesley.brash@nhs.net

E-mail address for P.B. Pynsent: p.b.pynsent@bham.ac.uk

E-mail address for R.B.C. Treacy: trea40@aol.com

E-mail address for D.J. Dunlop: david.dunlop1@nhs.net

Copyright 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article: