{"title":"Margin-of-safety Algorithm Used with EOS Imaging to Interpret MHRA Warning for 46-48mm MOM Arthroplasty","authors":"I. Clarke, J. Lazennec","doi":"10.15438/RR.5.3.115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Medical Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA June-2015) warned of higher risks with 46-48mm sizes of BHR hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The most common condemnation of adverse results in MOM bearings has been termed edge loading. We originally developed a margin-of-safety (MOS) algorithm to define edge loading of cups in simulator studies. This method integrated simulator wear-patterns with respect to cup diameters and cup designs. The algorithm’s simplicity lay in the fact that with wear-patterns and rim-profile angles predetermined, the only input required was the cup inclination-angle. The algorithm demonstrated that the margin-of-safety decreased in smaller cups due to the tribo-mechanics of spherical CoCr bearings, a previously unrecognized feature. For the 46mm and 48mm cups highlighted in the MHRA alert, the critical cup inclinations where edge-wear became a risk occurred at 65-66°, revealing an insignificant difference with respect to diameters. The MOS-algorithm also indicated that lower lateral-inclination angles were particularly beneficial, i.e. a 46mm cup positioned at 50° inclination would exhibit a higher margin of safety than either 48mm or 50mm sizes positioned at 55° inclination. This evidence supported clinical studies that recommended BHR cup inclinations up to 50-55° and lower as optimal for reducing metal-ion concentrations. In a patient with normal spine mobility, our EOS imaging demonstrated that the inclination in the 46mm cup steepened by 9° from standing to the seated position while margin-of-safety was reduced by 50%. Our 2nd patient with a stiff spine sat with the same component orientations as in his standing posture. Thus MOM impingement and subluxation in different functional postures may also provoke rim-damage mechanisms. Here the combination of EOS imaging and the MOS-algorithm may aid understanding of such risks. Thus the margin-of-safety algorithm confirmed and helped explained the relative risks in the 46mm and 48mm cups highlighted by the MHRA. The algorithm’s stratification by cup rim-profile, inclination angle and cup diameter may assist the surgeon determine which patients may be more at risk for edge wear with the smaller BHR cups.","PeriodicalId":20884,"journal":{"name":"Reconstructive Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reconstructive Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15438/RR.5.3.115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
The Medical Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA June-2015) warned of higher risks with 46-48mm sizes of BHR hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The most common condemnation of adverse results in MOM bearings has been termed edge loading. We originally developed a margin-of-safety (MOS) algorithm to define edge loading of cups in simulator studies. This method integrated simulator wear-patterns with respect to cup diameters and cup designs. The algorithm’s simplicity lay in the fact that with wear-patterns and rim-profile angles predetermined, the only input required was the cup inclination-angle. The algorithm demonstrated that the margin-of-safety decreased in smaller cups due to the tribo-mechanics of spherical CoCr bearings, a previously unrecognized feature. For the 46mm and 48mm cups highlighted in the MHRA alert, the critical cup inclinations where edge-wear became a risk occurred at 65-66°, revealing an insignificant difference with respect to diameters. The MOS-algorithm also indicated that lower lateral-inclination angles were particularly beneficial, i.e. a 46mm cup positioned at 50° inclination would exhibit a higher margin of safety than either 48mm or 50mm sizes positioned at 55° inclination. This evidence supported clinical studies that recommended BHR cup inclinations up to 50-55° and lower as optimal for reducing metal-ion concentrations. In a patient with normal spine mobility, our EOS imaging demonstrated that the inclination in the 46mm cup steepened by 9° from standing to the seated position while margin-of-safety was reduced by 50%. Our 2nd patient with a stiff spine sat with the same component orientations as in his standing posture. Thus MOM impingement and subluxation in different functional postures may also provoke rim-damage mechanisms. Here the combination of EOS imaging and the MOS-algorithm may aid understanding of such risks. Thus the margin-of-safety algorithm confirmed and helped explained the relative risks in the 46mm and 48mm cups highlighted by the MHRA. The algorithm’s stratification by cup rim-profile, inclination angle and cup diameter may assist the surgeon determine which patients may be more at risk for edge wear with the smaller BHR cups.