Abstract
The histopathology of periprosthetic tissues has been important to understanding the relationship between wear debris and arthroplasty outcome. In a landmark 1977paper, Willert and Semlitsch (1) used a semiquantitative rating to show that tissue reactions largely reflected the extent of particulate debris. Notably, small amounts of debris, including metal, could be eliminated without “overstraining the tissues” but excess debris led to deleterious changes. Currently, a plethora of terms is used to describe tissues from metal-on-metal (M-M) hips and corroded modular connections. We reviewed the evaluation and reporting of local tissue reactions over time, and asked if a dose response has been found between metal and tissue features, and how the use of more standardized terms and quantitative methodologies could reduce the current confusion in terminology.
Methods
The PubMed database was searchedbetween 2000 and 2015 for papers using “metal sensitivity /allergy /hypersensitivity, Adverse Local Tissue Reaction (ALTR): osteolysis, metallosis, lymphocytic infiltration, Aseptic Lymphocytic Vasculitis-Associated Lesions (ALVAL), Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris (ARMD) or pseudotumor/ pseudotumour” as well as metal-on-metal / metal-metal AND hip arthroplasty/replacement. Reports lacking soft tissue histological analysis were excluded.
Results
131 articles describing M-M tissue histology were found. In earlier studies, the terms metal sensitivity / hypersensitivity /allergy implied or stated the potential for a Type IV delayed type hypersensitivity response as a reason for revision. More recently those terms have largely been replaced by broader terms such as ALTR, ALVAL and ARMD. ALVAL and metal hypersensitivity were often used interchangeably, both as failure modes and histological findings. Several histology scoring systems have been published but were only used in a limited number of studies. Correlations of histological features with metal levels or component wear were inconclusive, typically because of a high degree of variability. Interestingly, there were very few descriptions that concluded that the observed reactions were benign / normal or anticipated i.e. regardless of the histological features, extent of debris or failure mode, the histology was interpreted as showing an adverse reaction.
Discussion
There is now an expanded set of terms to describe tissues but they lack clear definitions and typically do not use quantitative histological data to describe a wide range of periprosthetic reactions to metal. Lower limits of inflammation, necrosis or re-organization that represent a “normal” reaction to surgery and/or small amounts of wear debris are not clearly defined and are rarely discussed. The widespread adoption of the term “adverse” in the present tissue lexicon implies a cause and effect relationship between metal wear and corrosion products and histological features even though this has yet to be determined. The use of quantitative histological scores rather than subjective histological descriptions is imperative to improve the understanding and reporting of the range of periprosthetic reactions. In particular, a new lexicon that allows for a level of tissue reaction that is not misinterpreted as adverse is required.
