What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?: A clinical update

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?: A clinical update

The unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However these recommendations are not evidence-b...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Matharu, G, Judge, A, Eskelinen, A, Murray, D, Pandit, H
Format:	Journal article
Published:	Taylor and Francis 2017

Similar Items

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?: A clinical update
by: Gulraj S Matharu, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update
by: Gulraj S Matharu, et al.
Published: (2018-05-01)

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris?
by: Matharu, GS, et al.
Published: (2017)

Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

Follow-up guidance for metal-on-metal hip replacement patients should be updated
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2015)

Which factors influence the rate of failure following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris? An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

Follow-up of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients is currently not evidence based or cost effective
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2015)

Follow-up for patients with metal-on-metal hip replacements: are the new MHRA recommendations justified?
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

No threshold exists for recommending revision surgery in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients with adverse reactions to metal debris: a retrospective cohort study of 346 revisions
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2019)

Blood metal ion thresholds to identify patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris: An external multicenter validation study of Birmingham hip resurfacing and corail-pinnacle implants
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

The effectiveness of blood metal ions in identifying patients with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implants at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris: An external multi-centre validation study
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

The investigation and management of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients
by: Matharu, G
Published: (2017)

Trabecular metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components and the risk of re-revision following revision total hip arthroplasty: A propensity score-matched study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

Trabecular Metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components and the risk of re-revision following revision total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

Has the threshold for revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris changed in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? A cohort study using an adapted risk stratification algorithm
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2019)

Adverse reactions to metal debris occur with all types of hip replacement not just metal-on-metal hips: a retrospective observational study of 3340 revisions for adverse reactions to metal debris from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2016)

Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip revision surgery depend on the reason for failure: a propensity score matched study
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

What is the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients?
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2016)

Trabecular metal acetabular components reduce the risk of revision following primary total hip arthroplasty: A propensity score matched study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

Patient and radiographic factors help to predict metal-on-metal hip resurfacings with evidence of a pseudotumor
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2017)

The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2015)

Implant failure in bilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties: A clinical and pathological study
by: Uchihara, Y, et al.
Published: (2018)

Metal-on-metal hips: current status
by: Ansari, J, et al.
Published: (2017)

Necrotic and inflammatory changes in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasties.
by: Mahendra, G, et al.
Published: (2009)

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of periprosthetic biological reactions.
by: Mabilleau, G, et al.
Published: (2008)

Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2016)

Is the rate of revision of 36 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with Pinnacle acetabular components related to the year of the initial operation? an interrupted time-series analysis using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

Is the rate of revision of 36 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with Pinnacle acetabular components related to the year of the initial operation? an interrupted time-series analysis using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2018)

Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
by: Kwon, Y, et al.
Published: (2010)

Metal-on-metal hips.
by: Pandit, H, et al.
Published: (2012)

Metal-on-metal hips
by: Pandit, H, et al.
Published: (2012)

The relationship between head-neck ratio and pseudotumour formation in metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip.
by: Grammatopoulos, G, et al.
Published: (2010)

How should we follow-up asymptomatic metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients? A prospective longitudinal cohort study
by: Low, A, et al.
Published: (2015)

The Inflammatory Phenotype in Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Correlates with Blood Metal Concentrations.
by: Erja-Leena Paukkeri, et al.
Published: (2016-01-01)

The cobalt-to-chromium ratio "may be" a key marker for adverse local tissue reactions in metal-on-metal hips
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2015)

The effect of smoking on outcomes following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study of 117,024 patients
by: Matharu, G, et al.
Published: (2019)

Metal-on-Metal Hips: Ten-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the ADEPT Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty
by: Fabio Mancino, et al.
Published: (2023-01-01)

Metal-on-metal hip replacements: implications for general practice
by: Matharu, V, et al.
Published: (2017)