MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1224144868 · doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4466-8

Do Patients With a Failed Metal-on-metal Hip Implant With a Pseudotumor Present Differences in Their Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subpopulations?

2015· article· en· W1224144868 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle Catelas, Eric A. Lehoux, Ian Hurda, Stephen J. Baskey, Luca Gala, Ryan Foster, Paul R. Kim, Paul E. Beaulé

Notice bibliographique

RevueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesCanada Research Chairs
Mots-clésMedicineLymphocytePeripheralImplantPeripheral bloodPeripheral blood lymphocyteLymphocyte subsetsSurgeryPathologyImmune systemImmunologyInternal medicineT cell

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early adverse tissue reactions around metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements, especially pseudotumors, are a major concern. Because the causes and pathomechanisms of these pseudotumors remain largely unknown, clinical monitoring of patients with MoM bearings is challenging. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to compare the lymphocyte subpopulations in peripheral blood from patients with a failed MoM hip implant with and without a pseudotumor and patients with a well-functioning MoM hip implant without a pseudotumor. Potential differences in the systemic immune response are expected to reflect local differences in the periprosthetic tissues. METHODS: Consenting patients who underwent a revision of a failed MoM hip implant at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH) from 2011 to 2014, or presented with a well-functioning MoM hip implant for a postoperative clinical followup at TOH from 2012 to 2013, were recruited for this study, unless they met any of the exclusion criteria (including diagnosed conditions that can affect peripheral blood lymphocyte subpopulations). Patients with a failed implant were divided into two groups: those with a pseudotumor (two hip resurfacings and five total hip arthroplasties [THAs]) and those without a pseudotumor (10 hip resurfacings and two THAs). Patients with a well-functioning MoM hip implant (nine resurfacings and three THAs) at 5 or more years postimplantation and who did not have a pseudotumor as demonstrated sonographically served as the control group. Peripheral blood subpopulations of T cells (specifically T helper [Th] and cytotoxic T [Tc]), B cells, natural killer (NK) cells, memory T and B cells as well as type 1 (expressing interferon-γ) and type 2 (expressing interleukin-4) Th and Tc cells were analyzed by flow cytometry after immunostaining. Serum concentrations of cobalt and chromium were measured by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: The mean percentages of total memory T cells and, specifically, memory Th and memory Tc cells were lower in patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor than in both patients with a failed implant without a pseudotumor and patients with a well-functioning implant without a pseudotumor (memory Th cells: 29% ± 5% [means ± SD] versus 55% ± 17%, d = 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.2, 2.5] and versus 48% ± 14%, d = 1.6, 95% CI [1.0, 2.2], respectively; memory Tc cells: 18% ± 5% versus 45% ± 14%, d = 2.3, 95% CI [1.5, 3.1] and versus 41% ± 12%, d = 2.3, 95% CI [1.5, 3.1], respectively; p < 0.001 in all cases). The mean percentage of memory B cells was also lower in patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor than in patients with a well-functioning implant without a pseudotumor (12% ± 8% versus 29% ± 16%, d = 1.3, 95% CI [0.7, 1.8], p = 0.025). In addition, patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor had overall lower percentages of type 1 Th cells than both patients with a failed implant without a pseudotumor and patients with a well-functioning implant without a pseudotumor (5.5% [4.9%-5.8%] [median with interquartile range] versus 8.7% [6.5%-10.2%], d = 1.4, 95% CI [0.8, 2.0] and versus 9.6% [6.4%-11.1%], d = 1.6, 95% CI [1.0, 2.2], respectively; p ≤ 0.010 in both cases). Finally, serum cobalt concentrations in patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor were overall higher than those in patients with a well-functioning implant without a pseudotumor (5.8 µg/L [2.9-17.0 µg/L] versus 0.9 µg/L [0.6-1.3 µg/L], d = 2.2, 95% CI [1.4, 2.9], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest the presence of a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, with a predominance of type 1 Th cells, in patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The lower percentages of memory T cells (specifically Th and Tc) as well as type 1 Th cells in peripheral blood of patients with a failed MoM hip implant with a pseudotumor could potentially become diagnostic biomarkers for the detection of pseudotumors. Although implant design (hip resurfacing or THA) did not seem to affect the results, as suggested by the scatter of the data with respect to this parameter, future studies with additional patients could include the analysis of implant design in addition to correlations with histological analyses of specific Th subsets in periprosthetic tissues.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,092
Tête enseignante GPT0,360
Écart entre enseignants0,268 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2015
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchMême sujetOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyTravaux en français237 207