Blue Cross of Idaho Logo

Express Sign-on

Thank you for registering with Blue Cross of Idaho

If you are an Individual or Family Member, please register here.

If you are a Medicare Advantage or Medicare Supplement member, please register here.

MP 7.01.80 Hip Resurfacing

Medical Policy    
Section
Surgery 
Original Policy Date
8/15/01
Last Review Status/Date
Reviewed with literature search/9:2014
Issue
9:2014
  Return to Medical Policy Index

Disclaimer

Our medical policies are designed for informational purposes only and are not an authorization, or an explanation of benefits, or a contract.  Receipt of benefits is subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the coverage.  Medical technology is constantly changing, and we reserve the right to review and update our policies periodically.


Description

Hip resurfacing can be categorized as partial hip resurfacing, in which a femoral shell is implanted over the femoral head, and total hip resurfacing (THR), consisting of an acetabular cup and femoral shell. Total hip resurfacing, investigated in a broader range of patients including those with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and advanced avascular necrosis, may be considered an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly in young active patients who would potentially outlive a total hip prosthesis. Therefore, hip resurfacing could be viewed as a time-buying procedure to delay the need for a THA. Proposed advantages of THR compared to THA include preservation of the femoral neck and femoral canal, thus facilitating revision or conversion to a THR, if required. In addition, the resurfaced head is more similar in size to the normal femoral head, thus increasing the stability and decreasing the risk of dislocation compared to THA.

Total hip resurfacing has undergone various evolutions over the past several decades, with modifications in prosthetic design and composition and implantation techniques. For example, similar to total hip prostheses, the acetabular components of THR have been composed of polyethylene. However, over the years it became apparent that device failure was frequently related to the inflammatory osteolytic reaction to polyethylene debris wear particles. Metal acetabular components have since been designed to improve implant longevity. Sensitivity to wear particles from metal-on-metal (MoM) chromium and cobalt implant components are of increasing concern.

Regulatory Status

In May 2006, the FDA granted premarket application (PMA) approval to the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system for use in patients requiring primary hip resurfacing arthroplasty for non-inflammatory or inflammatory arthritis. This decision was based primarily on a series of 2,385 patients who received this device by a single surgeon in England. A number of post-approval requirements were agreed to, including the following items:

  • Study longer term safety and effectiveness through 10-year follow-up of the initial 350 patients in the patient cohort that was part of the PMA.
  • Study the “learning curve” and the longer term safety and effectiveness of the BHR in the United States by studying 350 patients at up to 8 sites where clinical and radiographic data will be assessed annually through 5 years and at 10 years. Also, determine cobalt and chromium serum concentration and renal function in these patients at 1, 4, and 10 years.
  • Implement a training program to provide clinical updates to investigators.

The Cormet Hip Resurfacing System (Corin) and the Conserve®Plus (Wright Medical Technology) are metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing systems that were FDA approved in 2007 and 2009, respectively. The approval order for the Cormet system states that the device is intended for use in resurfacing hip arthroplasty for reduction or relief of pain and/or improved hip function in skeletally mature patients having the following conditions: 1) non-inflammatory degenerative arthritis such as osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis; 2) inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis. The Cormet Hip Resurfacing System is intended for patients who, due to their relatively younger age or increased activity level, may not be suitable for traditional total hip arthroplasty due to an increased possibility of requiring ipsilateral hip joint revision.

A variety of devices have been cleared by the FDA for partial hip (femoral) resurfacing under the FDA’s 510(k) mechanism. Some surgeons may be using a femoral resurfacing component together with an acetabular cup (total arthroplasty component) as an "off-label" application.

In January 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication on metal-on-metal hip implants (including both hip resurfacing and hip replacement). (1) The FDA states that metal-on-metal hip implants have unique risks in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.

  • With metal-on-metal implants, some tiny metal particles wear off of the device around the implant, which may cause damage to bone and/or soft tissue surrounding the implant and joint.
  • Some of the metal ions released will enter the bloodstream and travel to other parts of the body, where they may cause symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).

Presently, the FDA does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects. In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.

PMA product code: NXT


Policy

Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing with a device system approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may be considered medically necessary as an alternative to total hip replacement when the patient:

  • Is a candidate for total hip replacement; AND
  • Is likely to outlive a traditional prosthesis; AND
  • Does not have a contraindication for total hip resurfacing (See Policy Guidelines).

Partial hip resurfacing with an FDA-approved device may be considered medically necessary in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head who have one or more contraindications for metal-on-metal implants and meet the following criteria:

  • The patient is a candidate for total hip replacement; AND
  • Is likely to outlive a traditional prosthesis; AND
  • The patient has known or suspected metal sensitivity or concern about potential effects of metal ions; AND
  • There is no more than 50% involvement of the femoral head; AND
  • There is minimal change in acetabular cartilage or articular cartilage space identified on radiography.

All other types and applications of hip resurfacing are considered investigational.


Policy Guidelines

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists several contraindications for total hip resurfacing. These contraindications include (not a complete listing) the following:

  • Bone stock inadequate to support the device due to:
    • severe osteopenia or a family history of severe osteoporosis or severe osteopenia
    • osteonecrosis or avascular necrosis with more than 50% involvement of the femoral head.
    • multiple cysts of the femoral head (more than 1 cm)
  • Skeletal immaturity
  • Vascular insufficiency, muscular atrophy, or neuromuscular disease severe enough to compromise implant stability or postoperative recovery
  • Known moderate to severe renal insufficiency
  • Severely overweight
  • Known or suspected metal sensitivity
  • Immunosuppressed or receiving high doses of corticosteroids
  • Females of child bearing age due to unknown effects on the fetus of metal ion release

A 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems. (1) The FDA advises that a metal-on-metal hip implant should be selected only after determining that the benefit-risk profile of using a metal-on-metal hip implant outweighs that of using an alternative hip system. Factors to consider include the patient’s age, sex, weight, diagnosis, and activity level. Patients should be informed about the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the risk that the hip implant may need to be replaced. Patient expectations and the potential complications of surgery with a metal-on-metal hip implant should be discussed.

Total hip resurfacing should be performed by surgeons who are adequately trained and experienced in the specific techniques and devices used.

There is no specific CPT code for total hip resurfacing. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons’ coding committee has written several articles stating that this procedure should be reported with the regular total hip CPT code 27130 (arthroplasty, acetabular and proximal femoral prosthetic replacement [total hip replacement], with or without autograft or allograft). It might also be reported with code 27299 (unlisted procedure, pelvis or hip joint).

Effective 10/1/08, there is a specific HCPCS “S” code for this procedure:

S2118: Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing, including acetabular and femoral components


Benefit Application
BlueCard/National Account Issues

State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all FDA-approved devices may not be considered investigational, and thus these devices may be assessed only on the basis of their medical necessity. 


Rationale

The current policy is based in part on a 2007 TEC Assessment that evaluated studies of patients with advanced degenerative joint disease of the hip who received a total hip resurfacing (THR) device and who reported data on short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including benefits and harms, as an alternative to total hip replacement (total hip arthroplasty [THA]).(2) The Assessment included 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT)(3) and 12 uncontrolled series, along with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket application (PMA) submission data,(4)
and information from the Australian Orthopedic Association (AOA) National Joint Replacement Registry.(5) The aggregate data suggested that THRtreated patients who do not require a revision have substantial symptomatic improvement of pain and hip function over presurgical status. The TEC Assessment also evaluated the patient safety and effectiveness data considered for FDA submission of the Birmingham device from the McMinn Cohort,(4) which are supported by unpublished data on 3374 hips implanted by 140 surgeons and published reports on more than 3800 hips treated by multiple surgeons (Worldwide Cohort). With regard to long-term safety, literature summaries provided to FDA  demonstrated increased serum and urinary concentrations of metal ions postoperatively in patients with THA, particularly after metal-on-metal (MoM) procedures, but data showed no conclusive evidence of significant detrimental effects. TEC concluded that use of FDAapproved
MoM THR devices meets the TEC criteria as an alternative to THA in patients who are candidates for THA and who are likely to outlive a traditional prosthesis.

Updated searches of the MEDLINE database, most recently conducted July 31, 2014, have identified a number of systematic reviews, RCTs comparing THR with large-diameter head THA, and other publications concerning factors in survival such as patient selection criteria and the surgeon’s learning curve. Also identified are an increasing number of reports of local tissue reactions (eg, pseudotumors) with MoM hip components, and in 2013, FDA issued a safety communication on the use of MoM implants.(1)

Patient Selection Criteria

For a 2009 report on patient selection criteria for THR, Nunley et al reviewed 207 publications, most of which had little or no description of the patient population, small sample sizes, poor study design, limited control of bias, and inadequate statistical analysis.(6) The literature showed no clear consensus on the upper age limit for male patients, but the most commonly used criteria was age younger than 65 years.
Nine articles suggested that female patients should be cautiously evaluated before performing hip resurfacing, especially if they are postmenopausal or have decreased bone mineral density (BMD). Some of the data reviewed was from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry, in which women 65 or older were observed to have a revision rate of 11% at 4 years. This was compared with men younger than 55 years of age who had a revision rate of less than 2%. Both of these cohorts (older women and younger men) have revision rates of 2% after THA. The evidence reviewed by Nunley et al also indicates that obesity, defined as body mass index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m² , can be viewed as a relative contraindication to THR, but not THA. Femoral head cysts, head-neck junction abnormalities, and poor bone density may also be considered risk factors for implant failure. At the time of this review, the literature on metal sensitivity and the presence of aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL) was evolving, and the potential for transplacental transfer of metal ions was a concern for young female patients who have the potential to become pregnant in the future. The authors concluded that the best candidates for hip resurfacing are men younger than age 65 with osteoarthritis and relatively normal bony morphology.

In 2011, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) provided a technology overview of modern MoM hip implants.(7) The U.K./Wales registry reported that hip resurfacing patients in all age groups, except males younger than 55 years of age, were at an increased revision risk compared with cemented THA with an unspecified bearing surface. The Australian registry reported hip resurfacing patients 65 years of age or older to have the highest revision risk. Head size and risk of revision for THR were inversely related to each other. Patients receiving the smallest femoral head components (eg, women) had the greatest risk of revision. The implant size was associated with poorer outcomes when gender/implant size interaction was analyzed. This analysis supports the view that THR is most effective in men who are too young to receive THA. A 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts also identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems.(1)

Efficacy of THR Versus THA
THR Versus Standard THA

One systematic review compared outcomes from THR and THA in studies with short- to mid-term -up.(8) The 7 comparative studies that assessed return to sports and activity showed either similar outcomes for the 2 procedures or advantages for the THR group. Three additional studies assessed gait, and 1 study was identified that assessed postural balance; all 4 showed similar or better outcomes for THR than THA.

In 2011, Jiang et al published a meta-analysis comparing MoM THR with THA in patients younger than 65 years.(9) Included were 4 RCTs with a total of 968 patients. Hip function scores were similar between the 2 groups, although the resurfacing group showed higher activity levels.

In 2008, Quesada et al published a qualitative systematic review that focused on advantages and disadvantages of THR in comparison with THA.(10) Advantages were reported to include possible bone conservation on the femoral side, lower dislocation rates, more range of motion, more normal gait pattern, increased activity levels, increased ease of insertion with proximal femoral deformities or retained hardware, and straightforward revision. Possible disadvantages of resurfacing were reported to be increased difficulty to perform the procedure, increased acetabular bone stock loss, femoral neck fractures, and the effects of metal ions. Although prospective controlled studies with long-term follow-up are needed for conclusive evaluation of these issues, the literature reviewed by these investigators suggests an increased risk of femoral neck fractures in postmenopausal women and small-boned men.

Mont et al compared gait analysis in 15 patients following successful THR with 15 patients who had a successful THA using a small femoral head, and with 10 patients who had osteoarthritis and 30 age- and sex-matched controls from a normative database.(11) Walking speed (1.3 m/s) was found to be faster in the THR group than in the THA (1.0 m/s) or osteoarthritis (1.0 m/s) group. Measurement of abductor and
extension moments found that the gait of patients following THR was closer to normal than the gait of patients who had undergone THA.

THR Versus Large-Head THA

Two RCTs were published in 2009 that randomized patients to THR or THA with a large diameter MoM implant.(12,13) Lavigne et al tested the hypothesis that the observed improvement in activity with THR is due either to patient selection bias or to the larger femoral head with THR.(12) To test this hypothesis, 48 patients were randomized to either THR or large-head THA. The patients and the evaluators at the gait
laboratory were kept blinded to the type of arthroplasty until 1 year after surgery. There were no differences between the 2 groups for most of the measures at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Specifically, similar results were observed for normal and fast walking, postural  evaluations, timed up and go test, hop test, and hip flexor and abductor strength ratio. The THR group performed better during the functional reach test, and the THA group completed the step test 3 seconds faster than the THR group. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Merle d’Aubigne, and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scores were similar in the 2 groups. Garbuz et al randomized 107 patients to THR or large-head MoM THA.(13) There was no difference in WOMAC or SF-36 scores for the 73 patients who had been followed up for at least 1 year. However, for the subset of patients who had been tested for serum levels of cobalt and chromium, cobalt was 10-fold higher and chromium was 2.6-fold higher in the large-head MoM THA group than the THR group. This was a 46-fold increase from baseline in serum cobalt and a 10-fold increase from baseline in serum chromium for the large-diameter head THA group, possibly related to particulate wear at the head-neck junction. Both of these studies support the hypothesis that the improved activity observed in THR patients is due to the larger diameter components used in resurfacing.

Revision Rates

A 2011 meta-analysis by Jiang et al. compared revision rates for MoM THR versus THA from 4 randomized or controlled trials with 968 patients younger than 65 years.(9) Analysis found increased rates of revision with THR at 1- to 10-year follow-up; the relative risk was 2.60. However, this analysis did not evaluate the effect of age, bearing head size, or gender, which have been shown to have a significant effect on revision rates in registry data.(7) As previously discussed, the U.K./Wales registry reported that hip resurfacing patients in all age groups, except males younger than 55 years of age, were at an increased revision risk compared with cemented THA with an unspecified bearing surface. Analysis of data from the Australian registry found that head size and risk of revision for THR were inversely related to each other. Patients receiving the smallest femoral head components (eg, women) had the greatest risk of revision. The implant size was associated with poorer outcomes when gender/implant size interaction was analyzed.

Large case series have also found decreased implant survival with smaller implant size and female gender. In a series of 554 patients, Murray et al found that the 10-year implant survival in females was 74% compared with 95% in male hips and the 10-year revision rate for pseudotumor was 7% compared with 1.7% for male hips.(14) Patient-reported outcomes on the Oxford Hip Score and UCLA Activity Score
were also higher in men. In a series of 447 patients younger than 50 years of age, implant survival in women was 96.1% at 10 years and 91.2% at 14 years, compared with 100% for men at both 10 and 14 years.(15) Female gender (p=0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p=0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. Analysis of 162 patients 65 years of age or older found 10-year survival of 98.9% in men and 91.9% in women.(16) Implant survival was negatively associated with increasing age (p=0.014) and decreasing femoral head size (p=0.024), with a nonsignificant trend for a negative association with female gender (p=0.079). Amstutz et al reported 12-year follow-up (range, 10.8-12.9 years) from the first 100 hip resurfacings at their institution.(17) Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was
93.9% at 5 years and 88.5% at 10 years. Subgrouping by femoral component size showed 10-year survival of 95.6% for a component size of greater than 46 mm, 83.8% for component sizes of 44 or 46 mm, and 78.9% for a component size of 42 mm or less. Multivariate analysis showed that low BMI, small femoral component size, and large defects in the femoral head were risk factors for failure. High scores for activity level were not associated with an increased risk of revision.

Other studies suggest a high learning curve for THR related to the increased difficulty in accessing the acetabular compartment. For example, in 1 study most of the failures were related to early acetabular loosening.(18) A report by Nunley et al suggests that for experienced hip surgeons, the learning curve for avoiding early complications (eg, early femoral fracture) is 25 cases or less, but the learning curve for
achieving the desired component positioning is 75 to 100 cases or more.(19) Gross et al reported that in 373 hips from the first multicenter FDA-regulated trial on hip resurfacing with the Cormet prosthesis, the learning curve was at least 200 cases, with survival at 11 years of 93% for the first 100 cases, 93% for the second 100 cases, and 98% for the last 73 cases.(20)

THR to THA Conversion

It is thought that revision of THR to THA might have better outcomes than THA-THA revision, but little data are available to support this assumption.

A systematic review identified 2 studies that compared the outcomes of conversion of failed THR to THA with primary THA.(8)
One was a 2009 report that compared outcomes of 39 patients whose resurfacing was converted to THA with a group of primary THA patients that had been matched by gender, age, BMI, and preoperative Harris hip score; all procedures had been performed by the same surgeon.(21) Perioperative measures were similar except for the mean operating time, which was 19 minutes longer for the revision group. At an average 45 months’ follow-up, the mean Harris hip scores were similar for the 2 groups (score of 92 for conversion to THA and 94 for primary THA).

Another study compared outcomes in 20 patients (from a group of 844 primary THRs performed between 1997 and 2005) requiring conversion surgery for failed THR (5 femoral neck fractures, 16 with femoral component loosening) with outcomes in 58 patients of similar age (64 hips from patients younger than 65 years) who had been treated with a primary THA by the same surgeon during the same period.(22) The
acetabular component was retained in 18 hips (and revised in 3 because the matching femoral head was not available at the time of surgery). The study found no significant difference in operative time between conversion (178 minutes; range, 140-255) and primary THA (169 minutes; range, 110-265), or in complication rates between the 2 groups (14% vs 9%, respectively). At 1- to 9-year follow-up (average of
46 months for the THR-THA revision group and 57 months for the primary THA group), outcomes as measured by the UCLA, SF-12, and Harris Hip Scores were similar (eg, Harris Hip Score of 92 for the revision group and 90 for the primary THA control group). Although this small study suggests that a resurfaced femoral component might be converted to THA without additional complication, larger comparative studies between THR-THA and THA-THA revisions are needed.

In 2010, de Steiger et al reported outcomes of revised THR from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry.(23) A total of 437 revisions were reported (of 12,093 primary THR, 4%) between 1999 and 2008. After excluding 39 cases of revision for infection, the major reason for revision of primary THR was fracture of the femoral neck (43%), followed by loosening/lysis (32%), metal sensitivity (7%), and pain (6%). A femoral-only revision, which converts the joint to a conventional THR, was performed in 247 of the 397 revisions (62%) undertaken for reasons other than infection. At 3 years, the rate of re-revised THR-THA was 7%, compared with 2.8% of primary conventional THA. Reasons for re-revision included loosening/lysis (n=6), infection (n=4), dislocation of prosthesis (n=1), and fracture (n=2). At 5 years, femoral-only re-revision (7%) was similar to re-revision of both the acetabular and femoral components (5%), but the rate of acetabular-only re-revision was 20%. A more relevant outcome for this policy, one that the investigators did not assess, would be a comparison of the re-revision rate of THR-THA versus THA-THA revisions.

Adverse Events

In January 2013, FDA issued a safety communication on MoM hip implants (both THA and THR). The FDA is providing updated safety information and recommendations to patients and health care providers. This new information is based on FDA’s current assessment of MoM hip implants, including the benefits and risks, the evaluation of the published literature, and the results of the June 2012 Orthopaedic and
Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel meeting. As of January 2013, FDA states that it does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects. In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.

The 2011 AAOS technology overview found that limited data exist comparing the prevalence of adverse clinical problems with MoM hip implants (both THR and THA) or for implants with other bearing surfaces.(7) Several studies noted a correlation between suboptimal hip implant positioning and higher wear rates, local metal debris release, and consequent local tissue reactions to metal debris (eg, soft tissue masses or “pseudotumors”). Several studies reported elevated serum metal ion (cobalt and chromium) concentrations in patients with MoM hip articulations, especially in patients with malpositioned implants. However, the technology overview concluded that the clinical significance of elevated serum metal ion concentrations remains unknown. The U.K./Wales registry began gathering data on soft tissue reactions in July 2009, but had too little data when the most recent report was published.

Local tissue reaction to wear particles (cobalt and chromium ions) with MoM components is an area of increasing concern. In 2011, Williams et al assessed the prevalence of pseudotumor formation by ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with MoM THA (n=31) or MoM THR (n=21).(24)
Results were compared with 24 asymptomatic patients with a metal-on-polyethylene THA. At a minimum of 2 years after surgery (mean not reported), 10 patients (32%) in the MoM THA group had a solid (n=7) or cystic mass (n=3), 5 patients (25%) in the THR group had a solid (n=3) or cystic mass (n=2), and 1 patient (4%) in the metal-on-polyethylene THA group had a cystic mass. Isolated fluid collection was similar in the 3 groups (10%, 5%, and 8%, respectively). Serum chromium and cobalt ion levels in patients with MoM prostheses ranged from 2 to 720 times the upper limit of normal. There was no correlation between the serum metal ion levels and the size of pseudotumor abnormality and no significant difference in serum metal ion levels in patients with pseudotumor formation than in patients without  pseudotumors in this small study. The high percentage of patients diagnosed with a pseudotumor in this study is due in part to a definition of pseudotumor that included cystic without solid mass.

Kwon et al determined the prevalence of asymptomatic pseudotumors after MoM THR in 201 hips.(5) All patients who had surgery at least 3 years previously (n=228) were invited to participate in this study. The 158 patients who agreed to participate underwent evaluation by ultrasound, followed by biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging if a tumor was identified on ultrasound. The mean follow-up was 61 months(range, 36-88). Pseudotumors that contained both cystic and solid components were identified in 4.4% of patients (6 female, 1 male) and 6.5% of resurfaced hips. Histological examination of the pseudotumors showed extensive necrosis of connective tissue and scattered aggregates of metal particles within necrotic macrophages in extracellular tissue. The pseudotumors were associated with significantly higher
cobalt and chromium levels from serum and hip aspirate.

A retrospective study of 610 consecutive hip resurfacings (120 with >5-year follow-up) reported that failure was possibly related to metal debris in 0.5% of THRs.(26) However, after examining histologic samples taken at the time of revision, Ollivere et al concluded that the rate of metallosis-related revision in their series of 463 consecutive patients was 3% at 5 years.(27) All of the patients in this series had been
recruited into the local arthroplasty follow-up program at the time of the primary surgery; 437 (94%) returned for clinical and radiologic follow-up with a mean follow-up of 43 months (range, 6-90 months). Case notes, radiographs, and magnetic resonance scans were available for the 13 revisions (2.8%, 12 patients). Histologic findings were available for 12 cases and were re-reviewed by a histopathologist with experience in metal wear and debris. In 7 cases, the histologic findings were consistent with a response to metal wear debris. Survivorship analysis gave an overall survival rate of 95.8% at 5 years, with an end point survival of 96.9% at 5 years for metallosis requiring revision. The relative risk for female gender in the metallosis group was 4.94. Also associated with metallosis were a smaller femoral component, greater abduction angle, and a higher BMI.

Steeply inclined component positioning along with a small size of component have been shown to be associated with metal ion levels, possibly due to an increase in edge loading.(28)

Mont et al described the results of FDA-regulated Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) prospective, multicenter trial of the Conserve Plus hip resurfacing system in 2007.(29) The investigators identified a number of risk factors for complications after the first 292 procedures; these included the presence of cysts, poor bone quality, leaving reamed bone uncovered, minimizing the size of the femoral component to conserve acetabular bone, and malpositioning of the acetabular shell. Modification of inclusion criteria and surgical technique in the next 906 patients (1016 hips) resulted in a decreased rate of femoral neck fracture (from 7% to <1%). There was also a trend toward reduction in other types of complications (eg, nerve palsy was reduced from 4.1% to 2.2% and loosening of the acetabular cup from 3.4% to 1.9%). No differences between the 2 cohorts were observed in the Harris Hip Score (93 vs 93) or the SF-12 (eg, physical component score of 50 vs 50).

Partial Hip Resurfacing for Osteonecrosis

A search of the literature on resurfacing for osteonecrosis identified a number of articles, including a 2005 review and a 2009 study on the topic.(30,31) Both articles discussed comparisons of hemiresurfacing to THR, referencing a single comparative study by Beaule et al from 2004.(32) This literature shows total resurfacing/replacement to provide more consistent and better initial pain relief than partial resurfacing.
The increase in poor outcomes with resurfacing is believed to be related to continued abrasion and possible misfit of the femoral component against the native acetabular cartilage. Therefore, for osteonecrosis in younger patients who do not have contraindications for the MoM prosthesis, THR (femoral and acetabular implant) would be preferred over a femoral component alone.

Clinical Input Received From Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers

While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

In response to requests, input was received from 1 physician specialty society and 1 academic medical center while this policy was under review in 2013. The input on the policy was mixed, although both reviewers agreed that evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the potential for harm with MoM hip resurfacing outweighs the benefit for all patients. One reviewer noted that current cross-linked  polyethelene total hip components may last 20 to 30 years, limiting the number of patients who would outlive a total hip prosthesis and be considered an appropriate candidate for THR.

Summary of Evidence

Hip resurfacing may be considered an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), particularly in young active patients who would potentially outlive a total hip prosthesis. Based on potential ease of revision when compared with THA, the evidence available at this time supports the conclusions that hip resurfacing (partial or total) presents a reasonable alternative for active patients who are considered too young for THA, when performed by surgeons experienced in the technique. The efficacy of total hip resurfacing (THR) performed with current techniques is similar to THA over the short- to medium term, and THR may allow for easier conversion to a THA for younger patients who are expected to outlive their prosthesis. The literature on risk factors for metallosis, pseudotumor formation, and implant failure is evolving as longer follow-up becomes available. Due to the uncertain risk with metal-on-metal (MoM) implants, the risk/benefit ratio needs to be carefully considered on an individual basis. In addition, emerging evidence indicates an increased risk of failure in women, possibly due to smaller implant size.
Therefore, these risk factors should also be considered in the overall patient evaluation for THR, and patients should make an informed choice in conjunction with their treating physicians.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
The Hip Society published an algorithmic approach to the diagnosis and management of MoM arthroplasty (THA and THR) in 2012.(33) The review indicates that adverse local tissue reactions to metal debris are escalating and that all arthroplasty patients returning for follow-up should be queried for pain, discomfort, or compromise of function. Symptomatic patients should be closely evaluated for all intraarticular
and extra-articular causes of pain, including aseptic loosening, sepsis, component malposition, or fluid collections and/or masses about the hip. The Hip Society states that there is still a role for MoM resurfacing arthroplasty in select patients groups. The ideal candidate is a male patient younger than age 55 with osteoarthritis and a femoral head size larger than 50 mm. Another relative indication is the need or desire to return to a very high activity level at work or in recreation. Contraindications to MoM resurfacing include known or suspected metal  sensitivity; moderate or worse renal function; females who may become pregnant; osteoporosis; large cysts; and avascular necrosis more than 50%.

In 2011, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) concluded that there is no evidence that the potential benefits of hip resurfacing outweigh the potential risks.(34) Revision rates appear to be higher in patients receiving THR procedures than in those receiving THA, which is of particular importance because the THR procedure targets young people. This risk may be particularly high in women. In addition, the elevated levels of metal ions are concerning. Although the clinical significance of these elevated ion levels is still uncertain, they are implicated in the development of ALVAL, often seen in aseptic failure of THR. Pseudotumors appear to be a more severe manifestation of ALVAL. It is recommended that MoM hip resurfacing using the BHR, Cormet 2000, or Conserve®Plus devices does not meet CTAF criteria 3-5 for safety, efficacy, and improvement in health outcomes for patients as an alternative to THA.

In 2009, AAOS provided a technology overview on MoM hip resurfacing.(35) For a comparison of revision rates between MoM hip resurfacing and THA, analysis by 3 joint registries indicates that patients who received THR are at greater risk for revision than patients who receive THA. One registry suggested that younger males may have a lower revision rate after THR than THA, although the available data were not found to clearly establish an advantage for this subgroup. There was no conclusive evidence on predictors of successful/unsuccessful outcomes.

In 2011, AAOS provided a technology overview of modern MoM hip implants (both THA and THR).(7) This document does not make recommendations for or against the use of MoM hip implants. Readers are encouraged to consider the information presented in the technology overview and reach their own conclusions.

In 2014 the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) issued an updated technology guidance on THA and THR for end-stage arthritis of the hip.(36) NICE concluded that both THA and THR are options for treating end-stage arthritis of the hip, although clinicians may be more likely to offer resurfacing arthroplasty to men than to women because higher revision rates have been observed in women. The appraisal committee concluded that THA was more effective and less costly than THR in all analyses, that revision rate was the most important key driver of costs and quality-adjusted life years, and that because the predicted revision rate of THA was less than 5% at 10 years in the population for whom both THA and THR were suitable, the revision rate standard for THR should be the same as that for THAs. NICE recommends specific prostheses for THA and THR only if the prostheses have revision rates of 5% or less at 10 years.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations
Total or partial hip resurfacing are not preventive services.

Medicare National Coverage
There is no national coverage determination (NCD). In the absence of an NCD, coverage decisions are left to the discretion of local Medicare carriers.

References:

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Safety Communication: Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. 2013; http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm335775.htm. Accessed June, 2014.
  2. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing. TEC Assessments. 2007;Vol 22, Tab 3. PMID
  3. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int. 2006;16 Suppl 4:73-81. PMID 19219833
  4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Summary of safety and effectiveness data: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System. 2006; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf4/p040033a.pdf. Accessed June, 2014.
  5. Australian Orthopedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report. 2006. PMID 
  6. Nunley RM, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL. Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. Jan 2009;467(1):56-65. PMID 18941859
  7. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Modern metal-on-metal hip implants: A technology overview 2011;
    http://www.aaos.org/research/overviews/Metal_On_Metal.pdf. Accessed June, 2014.
  8. Marker DR, Strimbu K, McGrath MS, et al. Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty - review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67(2):120-127. PMID 19583538
  9. Jiang Y, Zhang K, Die J, et al. A systematic review of modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients. J Arthroplasty. Apr 2011;26(3):419-426. PMID 20851564
  10. Quesada MJ, Marker DR, Mont MA. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty. Oct 2008;23(7 Suppl):69-73. PMID 18922377
  11. Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, et al. Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. Jan 2007;22(1):100-108. PMID 17197316
  12. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, et al. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Feb 2010;468(2):326-336. PMID 19543863
  13. Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, Greidanus NV, et al. The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Feb 2010;468(2):318-325. PMID 19697090
  14. Murray DW, Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, et al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Sep 2012;94(9):1180-1186. PMID 22933488
  15. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB, et al. The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J. Sep 2013;95-B(9):1172-1177. PMID 23997127
  16. Pailhe R, Matharu GS, Sharma A, et al. Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop. Jun 2014;38(6):1139-1145. PMID 24370976
  17. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, et al. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Nov 2010;92(16):2663-2671. PMID 21084576
  18. Kim PR, Beaule PE, Laflamme GY, et al. Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. Sep 2008;23(6 Suppl 1):44-49. PMID 18722302
  19. Nunley RM, Zhu J, Brooks PJ, et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Feb 2010;468(2):382-391. PMID 19779950
  20. Gross TP, Liu F, Webb LA. Clinical Outcome of the Metal-on-Metal Hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 Hip Resurfacing System: An up to 11-Year Follow-Up Study. J Arthroplasty. Apr 2012;27(4):533-538 e531. PMID 21908168
  21. McGrath MS, Marker DR, Seyler TM, et al. Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Jan 2009;467(1):94-100. PMID 18797977
  22. Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Apr 2007;89(4):735-741. PMID 17403794
  23. de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Prosser GH, et al. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. Feb 2010;81(1):72-76. PMID 20170416
  24. Williams DH, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, et al. Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metalon- metal hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Dec 7 2011;93(23):2164-2171. PMID 22159851
  25. Kwon YM, Ostlere SJ, McLardy-Smith P, et al. "Asymptomatic" pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty. Jun 2011;26(4):511-518. PMID 20591612
  26. Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, et al. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Apr 2008;90(4):436-441. PMID 18378915
  27. Ollivere B, Darrah C, Barker T, et al. Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Aug 2009;91(8):1025-1030. PMID 19651828
  28. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, et al. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Oct 2008;90(10):1291-1297. PMID 18827237
  29. Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ulrich SD, et al. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Dec 2007;465:63-70. PMID 17891034
  30. Grecula MJ. Resurfacing arthroplasty in osteonecrosis of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. Apr 2005;36(2):231-242, x. PMID 15833461
  31. Stulberg BN, Fitts SM, Zadzilka JD, et al. Resurfacing arthroplasty for patients with osteonecrosis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67(2):138-141. PMID 19583542
  32. Beaule PE, Amstutz HC, Le Duff M, et al. Surface arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the hip: hemiresurfacing versus metal-on-metal hybrid resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. Dec 2004;19(8 Suppl 3):54-58. PMID 15578554
  33. Lombardi AV, Jr., Barrack RL, Berend KR, et al. The Hip Society: algorithmic approach to diagnosis and management of metal-on-metal arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Nov 2012;94(11 Suppl A):14-18. PMID 23118373
  34. California Technology Assessment Forum. Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing as an alternative to Total Hip Arthroplasty. 2011; http://www.ctaf.org/reports/metal-metal-hip-resurfacing-alternative-total-hip-arthroplasty. Accessed June, 2014.
  35. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. 2009; http://www.aaos.org/research/overviews/hipresurfacing.pdf. Accessed June, 2014.
  36. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Technology Assessment 304, Total hip replacement  and resurfacing arthroplasty for end-stage arthritis of the hip 2014; http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta304. Accessed June, 2014.

Codes

Number

Description

CPT 

 

no specific code (See Policy Guidelines)

ICD9-Procedure 

00.75 Hip bearing surface, metal-on-metal

 

00.85

Resurfacing hip, total, acetabulum and femoral head

  00.86 Resurfacing hip, partial, femoral head
  00.87 Resurfacing hip, partial, acetabulum

ICD-9 Diagnosis 

715.05, 715.15, 715.25, 715.35, 715.85, 715.95 

Osteoarthritis, code range 

 

733.42 

Aseptic necrosis of head and neck of femur (includes osteonecrosis)

HCPCS 

S2118

Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing, including acetabular and femoral components

ICD-10-CM (effective 10/1/15) M16.10-M16.9 Osteoarthritis of hip code range
  M87.051-M87.059 Idiopathic asceptic necrosis of femur
ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/1/15) 0SUA0BZ, 0SUE0BZ, 0SUR0BZ, 0SUS0BZ Surgical, lower joints, supplement, hip, open, code by body part (acetabular or femoral surface, and right or left)

Type of Service 

Surgery 

Place of Service 

Inpatient 

 


Index

Arthroplasty, metal-on-metal
Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Device
Conserve Plus
Cormet Hip Resurfacing System
Hip Resurfacing, Total
Surface Hip Arthroplasty
Total Hip Resurfacing
 


Policy History

 

Date Action Reason
08/15/01 Add to Surgery section New policy
04/29/03 Replace policy Policy updated literature review for the period of 2001 through January 2003; policy statement unchanged, references added
03/15/05 Replace policy Literature review update for the period of 2003 through January 2005; references added. Policy statement unchanged
03/7/06 Replace policy Literature review update through January 2006; information on the Birmingham device and references 4-7 added. Policy statement unchanged.
10/10/06 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through July 2006; policy statement unchanged. Information added about FDA granting PMA to the Birmingham hip resurfacing device. ICD-9 procedure code added
04/17/07 Replace policy Policy updated with TEC Assessment; metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing with an FDA-approved device system now may be considered medically necessary as an alternative to total hip replacement in patients who are candidates for total hip replacement and who are likely to outlive a traditional prosthesis. All other types and applications of total hip resurfacing remain investigational. Reference numbers 6 — 18 added.
06/12/08 Replace policy  Policy updated with literature review, references 19-21 added; policy statement unchanged 
12/10/09 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through October 2009; references 22-35 added; statement added for partial resurfacing; considered medically necessary in specific conditions
5/12/11 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through February 2011; references removed and reordered; references 19 and 20 added; policy statements unchanged
5/10/12 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through March 2012; 6 references added; policy statements unchanged
9/12/13 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through August 19, 2013; references added and reordered; clinical input reviewed; policy statements unchanged. Information added to Policy Guidelines on patient selection
9/11/14 Replace policy Policy updated with literature review through July 31, 2014; references 15-16 and 36 added; Rationale edited with some references removed; policy statements unchanged