Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Patient and Radiographic Factors Help to Predict Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacings with Evidence of a Pseudotumor

Matharu, Gulraj S. BSc(Hons), MRCS, MRes1,a; Blanshard, Oliver BA1; Dhaliwal, Kawaljit BSc, MRCS1; Judge, Andrew BSc, MSc, PhD1,2,b; Murray, David W. MD, FRCS(Orth)1,c; Pandit, Hemant G. FRCS(Tr & Orth), DPhil1,3,d

Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume: 1 February 2017 - Volume 99 - Issue 3 - p 214–222
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00212
Scientific Articles
Supplementary Content

Background: The role of radiographs in the follow-up of patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) implants is unclear. We investigated whether a combination of patient and radiographic factors predicted MoMHRs with evidence of a pseudotumor.

Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center case-control study of 384 MoMHRs. The pseudotumor group of 130 hips all had evidence of a symptomatic pseudotumor on cross-sectional imaging, with the diagnosis confirmed at revision. The nonpseudotumor group of 254 hips (a subgroup of these hips were previously reported on) all had normal findings on cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs taken immediately prior to revision were assessed in the pseudotumor group and were compared with radiographs taken at the time of normal cross-sectional imaging in the nonpseudotumor group. Two blinded independent observers analyzed the radiographs for signs of failure, with excellent interobserver agreement. Logistic regression modeling identified the patient and radiographic predictors of revision for pseudotumor.

Results: Hips with a pseudotumor more commonly had abnormal findings on radiographs compared to hips without a pseudotumor (80.0% compared with 63.4%; p = 0.001). Patient and radiographic factors predictive of revision for pseudotumor in the multivariable model were female sex (odds ratio [OR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85 to 5.35; p < 0.001), high inclination (OR, 1.04 per degree; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.07 per degree; p = 0.006), acetabular osteolysis (OR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.14 to 12.0; p < 0.001), femoral osteolysis (OR, 17.8; 95% CI, 5.09 to 62.2; p < 0.001), and acetabular loosening (OR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.34 to 8.35; p = 0.009). Factors predictive of not having a pseudotumor were anteversion of ≥5° (5° to <10°: OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.77; p = 0.012; and ≥10°: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004) and heterotopic ossification (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.72; p = 0.015). The final multivariable model was well calibrated (p = 0.589), with good discriminatory ability (area under the curve = 0.801; sensitivity = 74.4%; specificity = 71.7%).

Conclusions: A combination of patient and radiographic factors provided useful information for distinguishing between MoMHRs with and without evidence of a pseudotumor. Surgeons may wish to consider these specific patient and radiographic factors before proceeding with cross-sectional imaging. Radiographs are important when assessing patients with MoMHR implants and should be included in all follow-up protocols.

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

1Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

2MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, Southampton General Hospital, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

3Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom

E-mail address for G.S. Matharu:

E-mail address for A. Judge:

E-mail address for D.W. Murray:

E-mail address for H.G. Pandit:

Copyright 2017 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
You currently do not have access to this article

To access this article: