Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Potentiodynamic Corrosion Testing
Published on: September 4, 2016
Outcome of revised metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: a Dutch arthroplasty register study
Jetse Jelsma1, S M J van Kuijk2, A Spekenbrink-Spooren3
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, Sittard, 6162 BG, Geleen, The Netherlands. jetsejelsma@gmail.com.
Background:
Preliminary results of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty were satisfactory, but since 2004 data showed high failure rates. National joint replacement registries are multi-centre databases comprised of thousands of subjects and implants which allow for identifying variables predictive of implant failure. The aim of the current study was to estimate re-revision rates after revision of a primary MoM hip arthroplasty in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties.
Methods:
Eligible procedures were those with a revision for any reason except infection, after an initial primary surgery with a hip resurfacing (HRA) or large-head MoM (LH-MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA). The probability of re-revision for both types of MoM hip arthroplasty over time was estimated using the cumulative incidence function taking mortality as a competing risk into account. A proportional sub-distribution hazards regression model was used to assess potential predictor variables of re-revision of these MoM hip arthroplasties.
Results:
A total of 3476 records of revised implants were included, of which 873 (25.2%) were MoM implants. Over the course of follow-up, 101 (11.5%) MoM implants were re-revised. During follow-up 36 (4.3%) patients who received a MoM-implant at primary arthroplasty and a revision afterwards had died. The regression model showed that for primary MoM implants a MoM articulation after revision (HR 2.48; 95% CI 1.53-4.03, p < 0.001), femoral-only revisions (HR 3.20; 95% CI 2.06-4.99, p < 0.001) and periprosthetic fractures (HR 1.98; 95% CI 1.03-3.82, p = 0.042) as reason for the first revision were statistically significant risk factors for re-revision.
Conclusion:
Both types of large-head MoM hip arthroplasties have shown high revision and re-revision rates; risk factors were identified. The outcome of this study can be helpful in managing expectations of patients and orthopaedic surgeons.
More Related Videos
07:45The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022
08:19Protocol for the Evaluation of MRI Artifacts Caused by Metal Implants to Assess the Suitability of Implants and the Vulnerability of Pulse Sequences
Published on: May 17, 2018