Author(s)

James G. A. Plant, Gareth H. Prosser, Ben J. Burston, Stephen J. Edmondston, Piers J. Yates

Department of Orthopaedics, Fremantle Hospital, Fremantle, Australia.

Background: There is much interest regarding metal-on-metal implants in medical and general media. Much of this has been regarding failure of specific implant systems and metal ion toxicity. We present our early mid-term experience of the ADEPT metal-on-metal system which has both modular and non-modular hip options. Methods: Functional assessment, blood metal ion quantification, and radiographic analysis were performed for the modular and non-modular ADEPT variants. Fifty implants were implanted with a mean follow up time of 28 months. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare modular and resurfacing groups, standardised hip scores were used to compare function to conventional total hip arthroplasty. Results: Metal ion levels were significantly higher in modular prostheses compared to resurfacing implants, but not at “harmful” levels (as determined by a previous metal-on-metal implant recall). Functional outcomes were excellent and revision rates were lower than expected. Conclusions: At our institution we have good outcomes with the ADEPT hip prosthesis. Though patient selection and implant position are crucial, poor performance of metal-on-metal hip replacements is implant specific.

Metal-On-Metal; Arthroplasty; Modular; Resurfacing; ADEPT; Chromium Ions; Cobalt Ions; Functional Review

J. Plant, G. Prosser, B. Burston, S. Edmondston and P. Yates, "Mid-Term Review of ADEPT Metal-On-Metal Hip Prosthesis. Functional, Radiological and Metal Ion Analysis," Open Journal of Orthopedics, Vol. 4 No. 2, 2014, pp. 38-43. doi: 10.4236/ojo.2014.42007.