Hip resurfacing in patients with severe osteoarthritis and blocked medullary canal

Abstract

Introduction:

This study evaluated the effectiveness of hip resurfacing in patients with femoral deformities or retained femoral implants. Implant removal and conversion total hip replacement (CTHR) have been associated with increased operative time, blood loss, and cost. Removing intramedullary nails in particular can be difficult and can result in a more difficult recovery and/or complications. Hip resurfacing can be performed with a blocked femoral canal and has the possible additional benefits of a less-complex procedure, improved functional outcomes, better patient survivorship, and a possibly less-complicated revision should a failure occur.

Materials and methods:

The author performed hip resurfacing in 61 patients (65 hips) with a blocked femur who had been advised elsewhere that they could not undergo THR without also undergoing additional surgical procedures. The perioperative complexity of resurfacing was evaluated by recording operative time, blood loss and functional outcomes using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Implant survivorship was evaluated by the need for revision surgery.

Results:

At 9 years’ mean follow-up (range 5–19 years), 59 of the 61 patients presented for postoperative evaluation. The mean operative time was 104 minutes and the mean blood loss was 300 cc. The mean HHS improved from 41 to 92 (p < 0.001) and the mean SF-12 physical and mental scores improved from 26 to 49 and from 44 to 54, respectively (p < 0.001). None of the procedures failed or required revision.

Conclusion:

Canal-sparing hip resurfacing is a successful and less complicated option than CTHR when there is deformity or retained implant blocking the femoral canal.

Keywords

Blocked femur femoral deformities femoral implants hip resurfacing osteoarthritis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biant

Bruce

Assini

et al . The anatomically difficult primary total hip replacement: medium-to long-term results using a cementless modular stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 430–435.

Cameron

. Tips of the trade #15. Removal of hardware prior to total hip replacement. Orthop Rev 1989; 18: 918–920.

Harris

. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737–755.

Holtgrewe

Hungerford

. Primary and revision total hip replacement without cement and with associated femoral osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71: 1487–1495.

Papagelopoulos

Trousdale

Lewallen

. Total hip arthroplasty with femoral osteotomy for proximal femoral deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 332: 151–162.

Mont

Pivec

Issa

et al . Short stem option for total hip arthroplasty with retained hardware. Orthopedics 2013; 36: 770–772.

Shi

Zhou

Yang

et al . Total hip arthroplasty using non-modular cementless long-stem distal fixation for salvage of failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric fracture. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1999–2003.

Pui

Bostrom

Westrich

et al . Increased complication rate following conversion total hip arthroplasty after cephalomedullary fixation for intertrochanteric hip fractures: a multi-center study. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 45–47.

Bercik

Miler

Muffly

et al . Conversion total hip arthroplasty: a reason not to use cephalomedullary nails. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 117–121.

10.

Merle

Streit

Innmann

et al . Long-term results of cementless femoral reconstruction following intertrochanteric osteotomy. Int Orthop 2012; 36: 1123–1128.

11.

Unnanuntana

Goodman

. Conversion total hip replacement after malunited intertrochanteric fracture: a technical note. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead N) 2008; 37: 506–509.

12.

Mont

McGrath

Ulrich

et al . Metal-on-metal total resurfacing hip arthroplasty in the presence of extra-articular deformities or implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 Suppl 3: 45–51.

13.

Stuchin

. Extra-articular deformities and the role of hip resurfacing – a proposed classification system. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009; 67: 135–137.

14.

Maguire

Seyler

Jinnah

et al . Hip resurfacing with retention of existing hardware - case report. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2011; 69(Suppl. 1): S98–S102.

15.

Amstutz

Le Duff

Campbell

et al . Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 2663–2671.

16.

Barrack

Ruh

Berend

et al . Do young, active patients perceive advantages after surface replacement compared to cementless total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3803–3813.

17.

Costa

Achten

Parsons

et al . Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2012; 344: e2147.

18.

Kendal

Prieto-Alhambra

Arden

et al . Mortality rates at 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with total hip replacement in England: retrospective cohort analysis of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 2013; 347: f6549.

19.

McMinn

Snell

Daniel

et al . Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: e3319.

20.

Grobbelaar

du Plessis

Marais

. The radiation improvement of polyethylene prostheses. A preliminary study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978; 60: 370–374.

21.

Yue

Cabanela

Duffy

et al . Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: risk factors for failure over 25 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 992–999.

22.

Costi

Howie

Campbell

et al . Long-term survival and reason for revision of Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 522–528.

23.

Tan

Ebramzadeh

Campbell

et al . Long-term outcome of metal-on-polyethylene cementless hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 802–807.

24.

Pritchett

. Curved-stem hip resurfacing: minimum 20-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 1177–1185.

25.

Amstutz

Takamura

Ebramzadeh

et al . Highly cross-linked polyethylene in hip resurfacing arthroplasty: long-term follow-up. Hip Int 2015; 25: 39–43.

26.

Buechel

Sr Pappas

. A metal/ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene cementless surface replacement. Semin Arthro 2011; 22: 66–74.

27.

Dunbar

Prasad

Weerts

et al . Metal-on-metal hip surface replacement: the routine use is not justified. Bone Joint J 2014; 96(11 Suppl. A): 17–21.

28.

Pritchett

. Hip resurfacing using highly cross-linked polyethylene: prospective study results at 8.5 years. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 2203–2208.

29.

Pritchett

. Very large diameter polymer acetabular liners show promising wear simulator results. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2016; 26: 311–319.

30.

Gösling

Hufner

Hankemeier

et al . Femoral nail removal should be restricted in asymptomatic patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 423: 222–226.

31.

Liodakis

Krettek

Kenawey

et al . A new technique for removal of an incarcerated expandable femoral nail. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 1405–1409.

32.

Lovald

Mercer

Hanson

et al . Hardware removal after fracture fixation procedures in the femur. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012; 72: 282–287.

33.

Ware

Kosinski

Keller

. SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. 3rd ed. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc., 1998.

34.

Schmalzried

Silva

Rosa

et al . Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 441:200–204.

35.

Amanatullah

Masini

Roger

et al . Greater inadvertent muscle damage in direct anterior approach when compared with the direct superior approach for total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98: 1036–1042.

36.

Johnson

. A new method for roentgenographic examination of the upper end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1932; 14: 859–866.

37.

DeLee

Charnley

. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; 121: 20–32.

38.

Brinker

Lund

Cox

et al . Demographic biases found in scoring instruments of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11: 820–830.

39.

Lieberman

Hawker

Wright

. Hip function in patients >55 years old: population reference values. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 901–904.

40.

Nunley

Zhu

Brooks

et al . The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 382–391.

41.

Kwon

Fehring

Lombardi

et al . Risk stratification algorithm for management of patients with dual modular taper total hip arthroplasty: consensus statement of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery, and the Hip Society. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 2060–2064.

42.

Mc Grath

Marker

Seyler

et al . Surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 94–100.