The need for revision surgery after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is more prevalent for women than for men. However, there is a paucity of information to explain this observation.
We aimed (1) to determine sex-specific risk factors leading to revision surgery; and (2) to correlate these risk factors to the dominant modes of failure of HRA.
Methods:
1101 patients (1375 consecutive hips) including 292 women (355 hips) and 809 men (1020 hips) with a mean age of 51.3 years were included regardless of bone quality. The contact patch to rim distance was computed.
Results:
A contact patch to rim (CPR) distance of ⩽7 mm, an aetiology of developmental dysplasia, a postoperative abduction-adduction arc of ⩾95°, and a metaphyseal stem left uncemented were risk factors associated with revision surgery for female patients, while a CPR distance of ⩽10 mm, a component size of ⩽46 mm, an age at surgery of ⩽55 years, and an early femoral preparation technique were risk factors for male patients. Hips with no risk factors from the female group had a survivorship of 98.7% at 15 years, matching or exceeding the results of all male subgroups. However the risk factors in the female group increased the risk of revision much more than in the male group.
Conclusions:
In the absence of risk factors, the survivorship of HRA in female patients is equal to that of males. Many female patients can safely benefit from HRA by excluding severe dysplasia and optimising surgical technique.
WagnerH.Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res1978; (134): 102–130.
2.
AmstutzHCGraff-RadfordAGruenTAet al. Tharies surface replacements: a review of the first 100 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res1978; 134: 87–101.
3.
McMinnDTreacyRLinKet al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; (329 Suppl): S89–S98.
4.
SchmalzriedTPFowbleVAUreKJet al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Technique, fixation, and early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res1996; 329(Suppl): 106–114.
5.
KishidaYSuganoNNishiiTet al. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004; 86: 185–189.
6.
SmoldersJMHolARijndersTet al. Changes in bone mineral density in the proximal femur after hip resurfacing and uncemented total hip replacement: a prospective randomised controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2010; 92: 1509–1514.
7.
GirardJLavigneMVendittoliPAet al. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88: 721–726.
8.
McGrathMSMarkerDRSeylerTMet al. Revision of surface replacement is comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008; 467: 94–100.
9.
BallSTLe DuffMJAmstutzHC.Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone and Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 735–41.
10.
LieskeSJohnMRimaschCet al. Dislocation as a rare complication of resurfacing of the hip joint. Case report and meta-analysis. Unfallchirurg2008; 111: 637–640.
11.
MalkaniALOngKLLauEet al. Early- and late-term dislocation risk after primary hip arthroplasty in the medicare population. J Arthroplasty2010; 25(Suppl. 6): 21–25.
12.
MontMASchmalzriedTP.Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90(Suppl. 3): 3–11.
13.
AmstutzHCGrigorisPDoreyFJ.Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip. J Orthop Sci1998: 3: 169–186.
14.
HaughomBDEricksonBJHellmanMDet al. Do complication rates differ by gender after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 2521–2529.
15.
MurrayDWGrammatopoulosGPanditHet al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 1180–1186.
16.
CoulterGYoungDADalzielREet al. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 315–321.
17.
DanielJPradhanCZiaeeHet al. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J2014; 96-B: 1298–1306.
18.
MatharuGSMcBrydeCWPynsentWBet al. The outcome of the Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint Surg Br2013; 95: 1172–1177.
19.
TreacyRBMcBrydeCWShearsEet al. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 27–33.
20.
HollandJPLangtonDJHashmiM.Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 471–476.
21.
AmstutzHCWiskLELe DuffMJ.Sex as a patient selection criterion for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2011: 26: 198–208.
22.
TanTLLe DuffMJTakamuraKMet al. Do clinical and quality of life scores change over time after hip resurfacing?Hip Int2015; 25: 146–151.
23.
McBrydeCWTheivendranKThomasAMet al. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am2010: 92: 105–112.
24.
DonahueGSLindgrenVGaleaVPet al. Are females at greater risk for revision surgery after hip resurfacing arthroplasty with the articular surface replacement prosthesis?Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 2257–2265.
25.
Glyn-JonesSPanditHKwonYMet al. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 1566–1574.
26.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJJohnsonAJ.Socket position determines hip resurfacing 10-year survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 3127–3133.
27.
LangtonDJSprowsonAPMahadevaDet al. Cup anteversion in hip resurfacing: validation of EBRA and the presentation of a simple clinical grading system. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 607–613.
28.
BergmannGDeuretzbacherGHellerMet al. Hip contact forces and gait patterns from routine activities. J Biomech2001; 34: 859–871.
29.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJBhaurlaSK.Risk factors for wear-related failures after hip resurfacing in patients with a low contact patch to rim distance. Bone Joint J2017; 99-B: 865–871.
30.
CroweJFManiVJRanawatCS.Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am1979; 61: 15–23.
31.
KaplanELMeierP.Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc1958; 53: 457–481.
32.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJCampbellPAet al. The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 conserve plus with a 3-9 year follow-up. J Arthroplasty2007: 22: 481–489.
33.
CampbellPBeauléPEEbramzadehEet al. The John Charnley award: a study of implant failure in metal-on-metal surface arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 453: 35–46.
34.
BackDLDalzielRYoungDet al. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005; 87: 324–329.
35.
AmstutzHCCampbellPALe DuffMJ.Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone and Joint Surg Am2004: 86: 1874–1877.
36.
MarkerDRSeylerTMJinnahRHet al. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty2007; 22(Suppl. 3): 66–71.
37.
MontMASeylerTMUlrichSDet al. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 465: 63–70.
38.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJ.Cementing the metaphyseal stem in metal-on-metal resurfacing: when and why. Clin Orthop Rel Res2009; 467: 79–83.
39.
AmstutzHCLe DuffMJBhaurlaSK.Are there long-term benefits to cementing the metaphyseal stem in hip resurfacing?Clin Orthop Rel Res2015: 473: 3197–3203.
40.
AmstutzH.“Top 10” technical pearls for successfully performing hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Tech Orthop2010; 25: 73–79.
41.
YoonJPLe DuffMJJohnsonAJet al. Contact patch to rim distance predicts metal ion levels in hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 1615–1621.
42.
MatthiesAKHenckelJCroSet al. Predicting wear and blood metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Orthop Res2014; 32: 167–174.
43.
CaicedoMSSolverEColemanLet al. Females with unexplained joint pain following total joint arthroplasty exhibit a higher rate and severity of hypersensitivity to implant metals compared with males: implications of sex-based bioreactivity differences. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 621–628.
44.
HallabNJCaicedoMMcAllisterKet al. Asymptomatic prospective and retrospective cohorts with metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty indicate acquired lymphocyte reactivity varies with metal ion levels on a group basis. J Orthop Res2013: 31: 173–182.
