Long-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients

What is the long-term survivorship, complication profile, and patient reported outcomes after Birmingham hip resurfacing?

Introduction

When indicated, Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) presents a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there remain questions about the long-term outcomes of BHR. Therefore, we asked: 1) what are the long-term patient-reported outcomes and 2) survivorship rates following BHR; 3) what are the causes for revision surgery after BHR? and 4) how have these outcomes compared to THA at long-term follow-up.

Methods

A query of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane in September 2023 was performed. Articles were included if they reported BHR survivorship rates at ≥10 years. Survivorship was defined as an all-cause revision of any BHR component. This review encompasses 26 articles, totaling 13,103 hips. Mean follow-up ranged from 6.0 to 20.9 years, but each study had at least a subgroup analysis for ≥10-year follow-up.

Results

Five studies compared preoperative and postoperative PROs for BHR, with four reporting improvement in at least one PRO after 10-year follow-up. Overall, survivorship rates ranged from 83% to 100% across diverse long-term timeframes, with 25 of 26 studies reporting 10-year survivorship rates greater than 87%. The primary reasons for revisions were implant loosening (22%), adverse reactions to metal debris (21.2%), and fractures of any kind (17.2%). In the six studies that compared BHR to THA, long-term survivorship was similar while BHR exhibited slightly superior activity levels.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggested favorable long-term survivorship and postoperative outcomes of BHR. In studies comparing long-term BHR and THA, survivorship was comparable, with BHR potentially providing enhanced postoperative activity levels.

Is there still an indication for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in femoral head osteonecrosis?

PURPOSE

Osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is a progressive hip disease. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a preferred surgical procedure among hip arthroplasty performed in young patients. The aim of this study is to show the long-term clinical and radiological results of HRA procedures performed for patients suffering from ONFH.

METHODS

Forty-five patients who underwent hip resurfacing with the diagnosis of femoral head osteonecrosis were included in the study. The Harris Hip Score (HHS) was used for clinical scoring of the patients. The blood chromium, cobalt, white blood cell (WBC) count, and CRP levels of patients were checked. Ultrasonography (USG) was performed for all patients at mid-term control checked for pseudo-tumours. For the radiological evaluation, acetabular inclination, stem shaft angle, prothesis-to-neck ratio, osteolysis zones, and heterotopic ossification were used.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 46.6 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 11.83 ± 2.9 years. The mean HHS was 90.3 ± 12.8 for final follow-up. The mean WBC value was 8.2 109/L, mean CRP value was 6.3 mg/L, mean chromium value was 4.9 µg/L, and mean cobalt value was 1.8 µg/L. Inclination changing 0.2°(p = 0.788), stem shaft angle changing 0.7°(p = 0.424), and neck-to-prosthesis ratio changing 0.01°(p = 0.075). No pseudo-tumours were detected in any patients in USG examination.

CONCLUSION

HRA provides long-term implant survival and excellent clinical outcomes for end-stage ONFH patients with low complication rates.

Survivorship and risk factors for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

Aims

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) has seen decreased usage due to safety and longevity concerns. Joint registries have highlighted the risks in females, smaller hips, and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to identify if reported risk factors are linked to revision in a long-term follow-up of MoM-HR performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Methods

A retrospective review of consecutive MoM hip arthroplasties (MoM-HRAs) using Birmingham Hip Resurfacing was conducted. Data on procedure side, indication, implant sizes and orientation, highest blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations, and all-cause revision were collected from local and UK National Joint Registry records.

Results

A total of 243 hips (205 patients (163 male, 80 female; mean age at surgery 55.3 years (range 25.7 to 75.3)) with MoM-HRA performed between April 2003 and October 2020 were included. Mean follow-up was 11.2 years (range 0.3 to 17.8). Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (93.8%), and 13 hips (5.3%; 7M:6F) showed dysplasia (lateral centre-edge angle < 25°). Acetabular cups were implanted at a median of 45.4° abduction (interquartile range 41.9° - 48.3°) and stems neutral or valgus to the native neck-shaft angle. In all, 11 hips (4.5%; one male, ten females) in ten patients underwent revision surgery at a mean of 7.4 years (range 2.8 to 14.2), giving a cumulative survival rate of 94.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6% to 98.0%) at ten years, and 93.4% (95% CI 89.3% to 97.6%) at 17 years. For aseptic revision, male survivorship was 100% at 17 years, and 89.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 96.7%) at ten and 17 years for females. Increased metal ion levels were implicated in 50% of female revisions, with the remaining being revised for unexplained pain or avascular necrosis.

Conclusion

The Birmingham MoM-HR showed 100% survivorship in males, exceeding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence '5% at ten years' threshold. Female sex and small component sizes are independent risk factors. Dysplasia alone is not a contraindication to resurfacing.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: Implant-specific outcomes and risk factors for failure

Background

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) may be a suitable option for treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). However, concerns regarding the extent of osteonecrosis, amount of defect under the prosthesis, and implant-related complications remain. This study aimed to report implant-specific outcomes and risk factors for failure of HRA in ONFH.

Methods

A total of 202 HRAs (166 patients) performed by a single surgeon were investigated. The stage, size, and location of ONFH were evaluated using preoperative radiographs and magnetic resonance images. Clinical, radiographic results, and serum metal concentrations of articular surface replacement (ASR) and non-ASR devices were compared. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the contributors of failures. The mean follow-up duration was 10.6 years.

Results

Twenty-six hips (12.9%) were operated with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), 99 (49.0%) with ASR, and 77 (38.1%) with Conserve Plus. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 52.1 to 93.2 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Revision-free survivorships of non-ASR and ASR implants were 99.0% and 82.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the use of ASR prosthesis, greater combined necrotic angle, and smaller head size were associated with revision surgery. A large combined necrotic angle was the only independent risk factor for mechanical failure at the femoral side (P = 0.029).

Conclusion

HRA for ONFH using BHR and Conserve Plus implants demonstrated favourable clinical outcomes with high revision-free survival rates at 10 years. However, care should be taken for large necrotic lesions that can lead to femoral neck fracture or aseptic femoral loosening.

The translational potential of this article

This study suggests HRA performed for appropriately selected patients with ONFH can show excellent long-term clinical results. Therefore, HRA should remain as one of the treatment options for ONFH, and further development of HRA implants should be continued.

A single-use, size-specific, nylon arthroplasty guide: a preliminary study for hip resurfacing

INTRODUCTION

In arthroplasty surgery, positioning of the components must be accurate and reproducible to avoid complications. Conventional guides are often used to align a component, but they require surgical skill and experience, and are prone to error. To this end, a single-use, size-specific, nylon guide (single-use nylon guide) has been developed for the purpose of increasing the accuracy without adding extra cost to the operation. The effectiveness of this type of guide was evaluated in using a synthetic bone study.

METHODS

A total of 66 synthetic femurs with the same osteoarthritic morphology were prepared. 3 surgeons participated in the experiments, and each surgeon created a drill hole for the femoral component by using the single-use nylon guide or a commercially-available, conventional, metal, neck-based guide (conventional guide). Anteversion, inclination, and insertion point acquired by the guide were compared between the guides, between surgeons, and to the computer-based plan.

RESULTS

Anteversion acquired by the single-use nylon guide (6.7° [4.9-11.5°]) was significantly closer to the plan (14.6°) than that acquired by the conventional guide (4.3° [2.4-8.6°]) (p = 0.03). The insertion point was also significantly closer to the plan for the single-use nylon guide (3.8 mm ± 1.6 mm) than the conventional guide (5.7 mm ± 2.4 mm) (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found for the inclination (p = 0.76).

CONCLUSION

A single-use, size-specific nylon guide was effective in acquiring a higher accuracy and precision in anteversion and insertion point than a conventional guide in this synthetic bone, hip resurfacing arthroplasty study. The use of single-use guides in other orthopaedic procedures should be explored.

Clinical accuracy and precision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty using computed tomography-based navigation

PURPOSE

To avoid malalignment of components during hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), we used a computed tomography (CT)-based navigation system for guidance. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical accuracy and precision of HRA performed using the CT-based navigation systems.

METHODS

HRA was performed on 17 hips guided by the CT-based navigation systems. We measured cup alignment deviation, deviation of the stem position, and alignment from the plan by image matching between pre-operative and post-operative CT images.

RESULTS

Cup anteversion was within 5° of that in the plan in all cases. Cup inclination was within 5° of that in the plan in 82.4% and within 10° in all cases. The angular difference of the stem was within 5° in all cases, and the entry point of the stem was within 4 mm in all cases.

CONCLUSION

The CT-based navigation system for HRA guided accurate component placement according to the plan.