MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Isabelle Catelas, Eric A. Lehoux, Ian Hurda, Stephen J. Baskey, Luca Gala, Ryan Foster, Paul R. Kim, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMedicineLymphocytePeripheralImplantPeripheral bloodPeripheral blood lymphocyteLymphocyte subsetsSurgeryPathologyImmune systemImmunologyInternal medicineT cell

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207