Hip resurfacing for rheumatoid arthritis: independent assessment of 11-year results from an international register

Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide structured information on the patient's health experience and facilitate shared clinical decision-making. Registries that collect PROMs generate essential information about the clinical course and efficacy of interventions. Whilst PROMs are increasingly being used in adult orthopaedic registries, their use in paediatric orthopaedic registries is not well known. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the frequency and scope of registries that collect PROMs in paediatric orthopaedic patient groups. In July 2023, six databases were systematically searched to identify studies that collected PROMs using a registry amongst patients aged under 18 years with orthopaedic diagnoses. Of 3190 identified articles, 128 unique registries were identified. Three were exclusively paediatric, 27 were majority paediatric, and the remainder included a minority of paediatric patients. One hundred and twenty-eight registries collected 72 different PROMs, and 58% of these PROMs were not validated for a paediatric population. The largest group of orthopaedic registries collected PROMs on knee ligament injuries (21%). There are few reported dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting PROMs in paediatric populations. The majority of PROMs collected amongst paediatric populations by orthopaedic registries are not validated for patients under the age of 18 years. The use of non-validated PROMs by registries greatly impedes their utility and impact. Dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting paediatric-validated PROMs are needed to increase health knowledge, improve decision-making between patients and healthcare providers, and optimise orthopaedic management.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty provides excellent long-term survivorship and function in patients with a good-sized femoral head : results of a single, non-designer surgeon's cohort

Aims

To establish the survivorship, function, and metal ion levels in an unselected series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRAs) performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Methods

We reviewed 105 consecutive HRAs in 83 patients, performed by a single surgeon, at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years (9.3 to 19.1). The cohort included 45 male and 38 female patients, with a mean age of 49.5 years (SD 12.5)

Results

At the time of review 13 patients with 15 hips had died from causes unrelated to the hip operation, and 14 hips had undergone revision surgery, giving an overall survival rate of rate of 86.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.2 to 89.1). The survival rate in men was 97.7% (95% CI 96.3 to 98.9) and in women was 73.4% (95% CI 70.6 to 75.1). The median head size of the failed group was 42 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 42 to 44), and in the surviving group was 50 mm (IQR 46 to 50). In all, 13 of the 14 revised hips had a femoral component measuring ≤ 46 mm. The mean blood levels of cobalt and chromium ions were 26.6 nmol/l (SD 24.5) and 30.6 nmol/l (SD 15.3), respectively. No metal ion levels exceeded the safe limit. The mean Oxford Hip Score was 41.5 (SD 8.9) and Harris Hip Score was 89.9 (14.8). In the surviving group, four patients had radiolucent lines around the stem of the femoral component, and one had lysis around the acetabular component; eight hips demonstrated heterotopic ossification.

Conclusion

Our results confirm the existing understanding that HRA provides good long-term survival and function in patients with adequate-sized femoral heads. This is evidenced by a 97.7% survival rate among men (larger heads) in our series at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years. Failure is closely related to head sizes ≤ 46 cm.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):68–76.

Primary total hip arthroplasty using a short bone-conserving stem in young adult osteoporotic patients with Dorr type C femoral bone

BACKGROUND

Dorr type C femoral bone exhibits a wide, stovepipe-shaped femoral canal, and thin cortices in the proximal femur. Dorr C bone combined with severe osteoporosis is an important challenge in primary hip arthroplasty. In this study, we assessed the effects of short metaphyseal fitting cementless stems on preformatted primary total hip arthroplasties in young adult osteoporotic patients with this femoral presentation.

METHODS

A total of 42 hip arthroplasties were performed in 35 young patients (range 20 to 36 years) using a short Tri-lock bone preservation metaphyseal-fitting cementless femoral component between 2012 and 2017. The mean age at surgery of the 27 male (33 hips) and 8 female (9 hips) patients was 27.5 years (range 20.3 to 35.8 years). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 20.2 kg/m2 (range, 16.8-23.2 kg/m2). According to Dorr's criteria, all 42 femora were classified as type C bone and all femurs suffered from severe osteoporosis (Singh index ≤ 3).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 5.5 years (range 3.0 to 8.0 years). The clinical and functional results improved for the Harris hip score, WOMAC, and UCLA activity scores. The Harris Hip score improved from 48.0 ± 8.0 (range 38.0 to 61.0) preoperatively to 87.0 ± 9.0 (range 77.0 to 92.0) at 12 months after surgery and 91.0 ± 8.0 (range 85.0 to 98.0) at final follow-up. The preoperative UCLA activity score was 3.0 ± 0.5 points (range, 1.0-4.0 points), which significantly improved to 7.5 ± 0.7 points (range 6.0 to 8.0 points) at the final follow-up. No patient exhibited thigh pain at the final follow-up. The mean stem-to-canal fill percentages were 97% ± 2.1% (anteroposterior view at midstem). For stem alignment, 40 hips (95.2%) of the femoral stem were positioned neutrally to 3° of varus with reference to the femoral shaft axis. The remaining two were positioned at 4° varus to 4° valgus. Radiographic evaluation showed good osteointegration of the implants in follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the tapered-wedge design and proximal porous coating, the shortened tapered conventional stem can achieve reliable stability through neck filling and metaphyseal fixation, which does not depend on the isthmus hoop stress. This stem was suitable in severe osteoporotic patients with type C bones in young adults who presented with a correspondingly straightened femoral canal with a wide isthmus and thin cortex.

Optimizing Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients for Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to guide providers on how best to optimize the health of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) planning surgery, to reduce risk and complications and achieve the best outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) have issued a recent guideline on perioperative management of antirheumatic medications in patients with RA. Patients with RA will continue to need surgery. Newer literature is helping to plan the perioperative period to help reduce complications and improve outcomes.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty has led to decreased revision rates and high implant survival rates as compared to prior generations of resurfacing. Many of the series that report on resurfacing outcomes focus upon patients treated with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Patients with inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are also treated in these series, however, their outcomes following resurfacing are underreported. The aim of this study was to determine complications that may occur following hip resurfacing in patients with inflammatory arthritis. A secondary aim was to determine functional outcomes following resurfacing.

METHODS

A search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed/OVID), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. 5 studies met eligibility criteria. This review includes 196 hips; 120 had a diagnosis of AS or seronegative spondyloarthropathy and 76 had a diagnosis of RA or juvenile RA. 8 revisions were reported at a mean time of 64.2 (8.67-275.58) weeks.

RESULTS

Femoral neck fracture was the most common indication for revision, occurring in 3.06% of all hips at 34.5 weeks (16.0-52.0). 2 infections, 2 reports of acetabular radiolucency, and no dislocations were reported. The University of California at Los Angeles score, Harris Hip Score, and Range of Motion were the most common functional outcomes measured, which increased in the majority of studies following resurfacing.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral neck fracture was the most common reason for revision in patients with inflammatory arthritis following resurfacing and there were no dislocations reported. Following resurfacing, these patients have improved functional outcomes.

Hip resurfacing: history, current status, and future

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) presents several advantages over conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA), including conservation and preservation of bone, reduced risk of dislocation, easy replication of hip biomechanics and easy revision if needed. It is a particularly appealing procedure for young patients. HRA has been performed for over 40 years following the same technological advances as THA. The bearing material used by most designs is metal-on-metal (MoM), which has the best compromise between strength and wear properties. However, MoM HRA has a specific set of possible complications. Aseptic femoral failures were initially the most prevalent cause for revision but progress in patient selection and surgical technique seem to have resolved this problem. Wear-related failures (high metal ion levels and adverse local tissue reactions) are now the main concern, and are essentially associated with poor acetabular component design and orientation, to which MoM is more sensitive than other bearing materials. The concept of functional coverage is key to understanding how MoM bearings are affected by edge wear. Only a 3-D assessment of cup position (e.g., the contact patch to rim distance) provides the necessary information to determine the role of cup positioning in relationship with abnormal bearing wear.The concept of hip resurfacing is more valid today than ever as the age of the patients in need of hip arthroplasty keeps getting lower. The recent publication of several excellent long-term survivorship results suggests that selection of a well-designed resurfacing system and accuracy in the placement of the cup can achieve long-term durability.

Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) involves the replacement of a damaged hip joint with an artificial hip prosthesis. Resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) involves replacement of the joint surface of the femoral head with a metal surface covering.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of different types of THR and RS for the treatment of pain and disability in people with end-stage arthritis of the hip, in particular to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) different types of primary THR and RS for people in whom both procedures are suitable and (2) different types of primary THR for people who are not suitable for hip RS.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio Database were searched in December 2012, with searches limited to publications from 2008 and sample sizes of ≥ 100 participants. Reference lists and websites of manufacturers and professional organisations were also screened.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of THR and RS for people with end-stage arthritis of the hip. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were data extracted and risk of bias and methodological quality were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. A Markov multistate model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by sex and controlled for age were carried out to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 2469 records were screened of which 37 were included, representing 16 RCTs and eight systematic reviews. The mean post-THR Harris Hip Score measured at different follow-up times (from 6 months to 10 years) did not differ between THR groups, including between cross-linked polyethylene and traditional polyethylene cup liners (pooled mean difference 2.29, 95% confidence interval -0.88 to 5.45). Five systematic reviews reported evidence on different types of THR (cemented vs. cementless cup fixation and implant articulation materials) but these reviews were inconclusive. Eleven cost-effectiveness studies were included; four provided relevant cost and utility data for the model. Thirty registry studies were included, with no studies reporting better implant survival for RS than for all types of THR. For all analyses, mean costs for RS were higher than those for THR and mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were lower. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RS was dominated by THR, that is, THR was cheaper and more effective than RS (for a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost of RS was £11,284 and the incremental QALYs were -0.0879). For all age and sex groups RS remained clearly dominated by THR. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that, for all patients, THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. There were age and sex differences in the populations with different types of THR and variations in revision rates (from 1.6% to 3.5% at 9 years). For the base-case analysis, for all age and sex groups and a lifetime horizon, mean costs for category E (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) were slightly lower and mean QALYs for category E were slightly higher than those for all other THR categories in both deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Hence, category E dominated the other four categories. Sensitivity analysis using an age- and sex-adjusted log-normal model demonstrated that, over a lifetime horizon and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, categories A and E were equally likely (50%) to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

A large proportion of the included studies were inconclusive because of poor reporting, missing data, inconsistent results and/or great uncertainty in the treatment effect estimates. This warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. The evidence on complications was scarce, which may be because of the absence or rarity of these events or because of under-reporting. The poor reporting meant that it was not possible to explore contextual factors that might have influenced study results and also reduced the applicability of the findings to routine clinical practice in the UK. The scope of the review was limited to evidence published in English in 2008 or later, which could be interpreted as a weakness; however, systematic reviews would provide summary evidence for studies published before 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with THR, revision rates for RS were higher, mean costs for RS were higher and mean QALYs gained were lower; RS was dominated by THR. Similar results were obtained in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses and for all age and sex groups THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. Revision rates for all types of THR were low. Category A THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-metal articulation) was more cost-effective for older age groups. However, across all age-sex groups combined, the mean cost for category E THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) was slightly lower and the mean QALYs gained were slightly higher. Category E therefore dominated the other four categories. Certain types of THR appeared to confer some benefit, including larger femoral head sizes, use of a cemented cup, use of a cross-linked polyethylene cup liner and a ceramic-on-ceramic as opposed to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Further RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003924.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Hip Resurfacing Implants

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES As a result of reading this article, physicians should be able to: 1. Describe the advantages of hip resurfacing. 2. Describe the disadvantages of hip resurfacing. 3. Identify the population in which hip resurfacing is most often indicated. 4. Demonstrate how to properly postoperatively manage patients with metal-on-metal prostheses. Hip resurfacing offers a suitable solution for young patients affected by hip disease who have high function demands and good bone quality. Bone stock preservation, restoration of the normal proximal femur anatomy, the lack of stress shielding, and the possibility of resuming sporting activity are proven advantages of hip resurfacing. However, there are some disadvantages, such as fracture of the femoral neck, onset of neck narrowing, and possible complications due to the metal-on-metal bearings, including pseudotumors, peri-implant osteolysis, and chronic elevation of metal ions in serum levels. Recent data suggest that the ideal candidate for hip resurfacing is an active male, younger than 65 years, with primary or posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and with a femoral head diameter larger than 50 to 54 mm. Based on these selection criteria, the literature reports implant survival to be similar to that of total hip arthroplasty. The current authors' experience confirms a low failure rate and excellent functional outcomes, with metal ion serum levels becoming stable over time in well-functioning implants. Proper surgical technique, correct patient selection, and the right choice of a well-established prosthetic model are essential elements for the long-term success of these implants.

Metal-on-Metal Bearing: Is This the End of the Line? We Do Not Think So

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have recommended the discontinuation of metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of adverse effects reported with large-diameter MoM THA. This is despite favorable long-term results observed with 28 and 32 mm MoM bearings.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this study was to assess the value of calls for an end to MoM bearings as THA components. Specifically, we wish to address the risks associated with MoM bearings including adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk.

METHODS

The study evaluates the arguments in the literature reporting on MoM (adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk) and the experience of the current authors who re-introduced these bearings in 1995. They are balanced by a benefit-risk review of the literature and the authors' experience with MoM use.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions to metallic debris as well as metal ion release are predictable and can be prevented by adequate design (arc of coverage, clearance), metallurgy (forged instead of cast alloy, high-carbide content), and appropriate component orientation. There is no scientific evidence that carcinogenicity is increased in subjects with MoM hip prostheses. MoM articulations appear to be attractive allowing safe hip resurfacing, decreasing the risk of THA revision in active patients, and providing secure THA fixation with cement in cages in severely deformed hips. MoM bearings in women of child-bearing age are controversial, but long-term data on metallic devices in adolescents undergoing spinal surgery seem reassuring.

DISCUSSION

Adequate selection of MoM articulations ensures their safe use. These articulations are sensitive to orientation. Fifteen years of safe experience with 28- and 32-mm bearings of forged alloy and high-carbide content is the main reason for retaining them in primary and revision THA.

Minimum 5-year follow-up after Cormet hip resurfacing. A single surgeon series of 234 hips

The performance of the Cormet hip resurfacing device was evaluated after a minimum of 5 years in 234 hips. The mean age of the patients was 54 years; there were 135 men and 80 women. The primary diagnosis was osteoarthritis in 78% of the patients. Outcome measures were the Harris Hip Score and implant survival. The overall survival rate was 94% with 12 revisions in women and 3 in men. There were 7 femoral and 5 acetabular failures and two revisions for groin pain. Cumulative survival rate in men and women was 98% and 89%, in patients with a femoral component larger than 44 mm and smaller than 44 mm 97% and 89% respectively. Patients with primary osteoarthritis had a 95% cumulative survival rate at 5 years. The risk of failure was 6.4 times higher in women than in men. Our results suggest that hip resurfacing with the Cormet device is an acceptable alternative for active patients with hip arthritis, but patient selection is crucial for good long-term results.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an analysis of safety and revision rates

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal (MOM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is in clinical use as an appropriate alternative to total hip arthroplasty in young patients. In this technique, a metal cap is placed on the femoral head to cover the damaged surface of the bone and a metal cup is placed in the acetabulum.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this analysis was to compare the revision rates of MOM HRA using different implants with the benchmark set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). The secondary objective of this analysis was to review the literature regarding adverse biological effects associated with implant material.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature search was performed on February 13, 2012, to identify studies published from January 1, 2009, to February 13, 2012.

RESULTS

The revision rates for MOM HRA using 6 different implants were reviewed. The revision rates for MOM HRA with 3 implants met the NICE criteria, i.e., a revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years. Two implants had short-term follow-ups and MOM HRA with one of the implants failed to meet the NICE criteria. Adverse tissue reactions resulting in failure of the implants have been reported by several studies. With a better understanding of the factors that influence the wear rate of the implants, adverse tissue reactions and subsequent implant failure can be minimized. Many authors have suggested that patient selection and surgical technique affect the wear rate and the risk of tissue reactions. The biological effects of high metal ion levels in the blood and urine of patients with MOM HRA implants are not known. Studies have shown an increase in chromosomal aberrations in patients with MOM articulations, but the clinical implications and long-term consequences of this increase are still unknown. Epidemiological studies have shown that patients with MOM HRA implants did not have an overall increase in mortality or risk of cancer. There is insufficient clinical data to confirm the teratogenicity of MOM implants in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal-on-metal HRA can be beneficial for appropriately selected patients, provided the surgeon has the surgical skills required for performing this procedure.

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

The best indication for hip resurfacing is a young active patient with severe hip arthritis, good hip morphology and reasonable bone quality. With revision of either component for any reason as the endpoint, there were 68 revisions in our series of 3,095 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHR) (1997-2009), including all diagnoses in all ages. This equates to a revision rate of 2.2% and survivorships of 99, 97 and 96% at five, ten and 13 years, respectively. In patients under 55 years with osteoarthritis, the survivorship is 99 and 98% at ten and 13 years. These results provide medium-term evidence that BHR when performed well in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and implant survivorship. Small changes to implant materials and design can affect joint function and survivorship significantly as seen from the withdrawal of certain resurfacing devices recently from clinical use. The clinical history of one device cannot be extrapolated to other devices.