We conducted a prospective single-blinded randomised controlled trial to compare the functional and quality of life outcomes in two groups of patients between 60 and 80 years of age undergoing THR; the first receiving a small head (28–32 mm) metal on polyethylene (MoP) articulation, and the second receiving a large head (44–54 mm) metal on metal (MoM) articulation. We recruited 49 patients and randomised them into one of the two groups (22 MoP and 27 MoM). The results demonstrated no statistical difference in any of the assessed functional outcomes at any follow-up point (p>0.05). There were no dislocations or revisions in either group. Although it has been suggested that large head MoM articulations in THA offer superior stability and function, our results suggest that small head MoP articulations can achieve comparable ROM, function and quality of life at short-term follow-up.
DarasM., MacaulayW.Total hip arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis.Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ).2009; 38: 125–9.
2.
DunstanE., LadonD., Whittingham-JonesP., CarringtonR., BriggsT.W.Chromosomal aberrations in the peripheral blood of patients with metal-on-metal hip bearings.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2008; 90: 517–22.
3.
CharnleyJ.Total prosthetic replacement of the hip.Reconstr Surg Traumatol.1969; 11: 9–19.
4.
HaddadF.S., ThakrarR.R., HartA.J.Metal-on-metal bearings: the evidence so far.J Bone Joint Surg Br.2011; 93: 572–9.
5.
CucklerJ.M., MooreK.D., LombardiA.V.Jr., McPhersonE., EmersonR.Large versus small femoral heads in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty.2004; 19(8 suppl 3): 41–4.
6.
HerrlinK., SelvickG., PettersonH., LidgrenL.Range of motion caused by design of the total hip prosthesis.Acta Radiol.1988; 29: 701–4.
7.
ChanF.W., BobynJ.D., MedleyJ.B., KrygierJ.J., TanzerM.Wear and lubrication of metal-on-metal hip implants.Clin Othop Relat Res.1999; 369: 10–24.
8.
ZinZ.M., DowsonD., FisherJ.Analysis of fluid lubrication in artificial hip joint replacements with surfaces of high elastic modulus.Proc Inst Mech Eng H.1997; 211: 247–56.
9.
LavigneM., TherrienM., NantelJ., RoyA., PrinceF., VendittoliP.A.The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same. A randomized double-blind study.Clin Orthop Relat Res.2010; 468: 326–36.
10.
GirardJ., LavigneM., VendittoliP.A., RoyA.G.Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br.2006; 88: 721–6.
11.
GoreD.R., MurrayM.P., GardnerG.M., SepicS.B.Hip function after total vs surface replacement.Acta Orthop Scand.1985; 56: 386–90.
12.
LavigneM., MasseV., GirardJ., RoyA.G., VendittoliP.A.Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomised study.Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot.2008; 94: 361–7.
13.
MontM.A., SeylerT.M., RaglandP.S., StarrR., ErhartJ., BhaveA.Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasy.2007; 22: 100–8.
14.
NantelJ., TermozN., CentomoH., LavigneM., VendittoliP.A., PrinceF.Postural balance during quiet standing in patients with total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement arthroplasty.Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon).2008; 23: 402–7.
15.
LombardiA.V., SkeelsM.D., BerendK.R., AdamsJ.B., FranchiO.J.Do large heads enhance stability and restore native anatomy in primary total hip arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res.2011; 469: 1547–53.
16.
BurroughsB.R., HasstromB., GolladayG.J., HoeffelD., HarrisW.H.Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes.J Arthroplasty.2005; 20: 11–9.
17.
D'LimaD.D., UrquhartA.G., BuehlerK.O., WalkerR.H., ColwellC.W.The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2000; 82: 315–21.
18.
BartzR.L., NobleP.C., KadakiaN.R., TullosH.S.The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2000; 82: 1300–7.
19.
BerryD.J., von KnochM., SchleckC.D., HarmsenW.S.The cumulative long-term risk of dislocations after primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2004; 86: 9–14.
20.
ConroyJ.L., WhitehouseS.L., GravesS.E., PrattN.L., RyanP., CrawfordR.W.Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty.2008; 23: 867–72.
21.
PetersC.L., McPhersonE., JacksonJ.D., EricksonJ.A.Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty.2007; 22: 140–4.
22.
DaviesA.P., WillertH.G., CampbellP.A., LearmonthI.D., CaseC.P.An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005; 87: 18–27.
23.
ParkY.S., MoonY.W., LimS.J., YangJ.M., AhnG., ChoiY.L.Early osteolysis following second-generation metal-on-metal hip replacement.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005; 87: 1515–21.
24.
WillertH.G., BuchhornG.H., FayyaziA.Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005; 87: 28–36.
25.
JacobsJ.J., HallabN.J.Loosening and osteolysis associated with metal-on metal bearings: a local effect on metal hypersensitivity?J Bone Joint Surg Am.2006; 88: 1171–2.
26.
DawsonJ., FitzpatrickR., CarrA., MurrayD.Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.J Bone Joint Surg Br.1996; 78: 185–90.
27.
HarrisW.H.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: 737–55.
28.
JenkinsonC., WrightL., CoulterA.Criterior validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample.Qual Life Res.1994; 3: 7–12.
29.
DoornP.F., CampbellP.A., WorrallJ., BenyaP.D., McKellopH.A., AmstutzH.C.Metal wear particle characterization from metal on metal total hip replacements: transmission electron microscopy study of periprosthetic tissues and isolated particles.J Biomed Mater Res.1998; 42: 103–11.
30.
WillertH.G., BuchhornG.H., FayyaziA.Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study.J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005; 87: 28–36.
31.
MacDonaldS.J.Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: the concerns.Clin Orthop Relat Res.2004; 429: 86–93.
32.
SavarinoL., GranchiD., CiapettiG.Ion release in patients with metal-on-metal hip bearings in total joint replacement: a comparison with metal-on-polyethylene bearings.J Biomed Mater Res.2002; 63: 467–74.
33.
VisuriT., PukkalaE., PaavolainenP., PulkkinenP., RiskaE.B.Cancer risk after metal on metal and polyethylene on metal total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res.1996; 329(Suppl): 280–9.
34.
HartA.J., HesterT., SinclairK.The association between metal ions from hip resurfacing and reduced T-cell counts.J Bone Joint Surg Br.2006; 88: 449–54.
