Skip to main content
. 2012 Aug 3;470(11):3101–3108. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2502-5

Table 2.

Comparison of the literature reveals different responses to small- and large-diameter metal-on-metal and hip resurfacings suggesting adverse tissue reactions

Author Metal-on-metal design Osteolysis Tissue response Head size Metal content Corrosion Particle liberation
Lavigne et al. [27] Biomet, DePuy (Ultamet), Smith & Nephew (Sikomet), Zimmer (Metasul) NA + > 50 mm Blood +
Jacobs et al. [18] Metasul, DePuy (Ultamet) Modular cemented and uncemented + Foreign body reaction NA +
Langton et al. [25] Resurfacing (ASR [DePuy], BHR [Smith & Nephew], Conserve [Wright]) + NA NA + +
Langton et al. [26] Resurfacing (ASR BHR Conserve) NA ARMD NA NA NA +
Willert et al. [42] Metasul + ALVAL 28 mm NA NA +
Lohmann et al. [29] Sikomet + ALVAL 28 mm Tissue +
Savarino et al. [36] NA NA NA NA Blood + NA
Long et al. [30] Metasul 37,4% (1-year followup) Inflammation 44–50 mm NA NA NA
Mahendra et al. [31] BHR, Conserve Plus [Wright], Cormet [Corin] NA Macrophages 86% ALVAL 14% NA NA NA +
Current study LDH [Zimmer] Metasul 52% Foreign body reaction and necrosis (91%), ALVAL (9%) ≥ 40 mm Tissue + +

NA = not available; ARMD = adverse reaction to metal debris; ALVAL = aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis associated lesion.