Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) with potential advantages of preserving femoral bone stock and the ability to participate in higher impact activities. This study compares outcomes, satisfaction and preference in patients who underwent HRA in 1 hip and THA on the contralateral side.
Methods:
62 Patients with an HRA in 1 hip and a contralateral THA were retrospectively identified at 3 centres, consisting of 38 males and 24 females with 53 patients (85.5%) undergoing HRA first. A survey regarding satisfaction and preference for each procedure and outcome scores were obtained.
Results:
Patients were younger (51.5 vs. 56.6 years, p = 0.002) and had longer follow-up on the HRA hip (11.0 vs. 6.0 years, p < 0.001). HRA was associated with larger increase in Harris Hip Score from preoperative to final follow-up (35.8 vs. 30.6, p = 0.035). 18 Patients (29.0%) preferred HRA, 19 (30.6%) preferred THA and 25 (40.3%) had no preference (p = 0.844). When asked what they would choose if they could only have 1 surgery again, 41 (66.1%, p < 0.001) picked HRA. Overall satisfaction (p = 0.504), willingness to live with their HRA versus THA for the rest of their life (p = 0.295) and recommendation to others (p = 0.097) were similar.
Conclusions:
Although HRA is associated with risks related to metal-on-metal bearings, it showed greater increase in patient-reported outcomes and a small subjective preference amongst patients who have undergone both conventional and resurfacing arthroplasty.
LearmonthIDYoungCRorabeckC.The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet2007; 370: 1508–1519.
2.
KurtzSMLauEOngK, et al. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 2606–2612.
3.
MeiraEPZeniJJr.Sports participation following total hip arthroplasty. Int J Sports Phys Ther2014; 9: 839–850.
4.
SershonRBalkissoonRValleCJ.Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2016; 9: 84–92.
5.
McMinnDJDanielJZiaeeH, et al. Indication and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop2011; 35: 231–237.
6.
GerhardtDMSmoldersJMRijndersTA, et al. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to five years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 308–314.
7.
GirardJLonsAPommepuyT, et al. High-impact sport after hip-resurfacing: the Ironman triathlon. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2017; 103: 675–678.
8.
MarshallDAPykermanKWerleJ, et al. Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472: 2217–2230.
9.
HaynesJAStamboughJBBarrackRL, et al. Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med2016; 9: 103–111.
10.
JunnilaMSeppänenMMokkaJ, et al. Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2015; 86: 345–350.
11.
MatharuGSBerrymanFJudgeA, et al. Blood metal ion thresholds to identify patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris: an external multicenter validation study of Birmingham hip resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 1532–1539.
MatharuGSMcBrydeCWPynsentWB, et al. The outcome of the Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B: 1172–1177.
14.
DanielJPradhanCZiaeeH, et al. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single- surgeon series. Bone Joint J2014; 96-B: 1298–1306.
15.
CoulterGYoungDADalzielRE, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94-B: 315–321.
16.
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.
17.
MurrayDWGrammatopoulosGPanditH, et al. The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94: 1180–1186.
18.
Van Der StraetenCVan QuickenborneDDe RoestB, et al. Metal ion levels from well-functioning Birmingham hip resurfacings decline significantly at ten years. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B: 1332–1338.
19.
ReitoAPuolakkaTEloP, et al. Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours. Int Orthop2014; 38: 2251–2257.
20.
MontMAMarkerDRSmithJM, et al. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res2009; 467: 66–71.
21.
PollardTCBakerRPEastaugh-WaringSJ, et al. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip; a five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006; 88-B: 592–600.
22.
VailTPMinaCAYerglerJD, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing com- pares favorably with THA at 2 years follow up. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006; 453: 123–131.
23.
LingardEAMuthumayandiKHollandJP.Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009; 91: 1550–1554.
24.
IssaKPalichATatevossianT, et al. The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in men. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2013; 14: 161.
25.
CostaMLAchtenJFoguetP, et al. Comparison of hip function and quality of life of total hip arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of young patients with arthritis of the hip joint at 5 years. BMJ Open2018; 8: e018849.
26.
HaddadFSKonanSTahassebiJ.A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years. Bone Joint J2015; 97-B: 617–622.
27.
Ortiz-DecletVRIacobelliDAYuenLC, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing vs total hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair comparison of clinical outcomes. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3647–3651.
28.
HarrisWH.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 Am1969; 51: 737–755.
29.
KonanSTahmassebiJHaddadFS.The development and validation of a more discriminating functional hip score for research. HSS J2012; 8: 198–205.
30.
WilliamsGNGangelTJArcieroRA, et al. Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med1999; 27: 214–221.
31.
BehrendHGiesingerKGiesingerJM, et al. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty2012; 27: 430–436.e1.
32.
JiangYZhangKDieJ, et al. A systematic review of modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients. J Arthroplasty2011; 26: 419–426.
33.
SpringerBDConnellySEOdumSM, et al. Cementless femoral components in young patients: review and meta-analysis of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty2009; 24(Suppl. 6): 2–8.
34.
van der WeegenWHoekstraHJSijbesmaT, et al. Survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93: 298–306.
35.
HaynesJAStamboughJBSassoonAA, et al. Contemporary surgical indications and referral trends in revision total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year review. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 622–625.
36.
BarrackRLRuhELBerendME, et al. Do young, active patients perceive advantages after surface replacement compared to cementless total hip arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 3803–3813.
37.
NamDNunleyRMSauberTJ, et al. Incidence and location of pain in young, active patients following hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1971–1975.
38.
AqilADrabuRBergmannJH, et al. The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. Int Orthop2013; 37: 795–801.
39.
JenkinsonCLayteRJenkinsonD, et al. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies?J Public Health Med1997; 19: 179–186.
40.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br1996; 78: 185–190.
41.
BrooksR.EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy1996; 37: 53–72.
