Long-term outcome of a metal-on-polyethylene cementless hip resurfacing

Is a cementless fixation of the femoral component suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) typically uses a hybrid design (cemented femoral component and cementless acetabular shell) but has recently been performed with fully cementless components. There is a paucity of information on the clinical performance of these cementless designs.

METHODS

The UCLA clinical scores, SF-12 quality of life scores, complication rates, survivorship and radiographic signs of loosening or gross stress shielding of 39 hips (39 male patients) implanted with cementless HRA were compared with those of 40 hips (37 male patients) implanted with hybrid HRA during the same time frame.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in postoperative clinical and quality of life scores, complication rates, or radiographic signs of loosening between the 2 groups. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 97.2% for the cementless group and 100% for the hybrid group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.3694). There were no femoral component failures in any of the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 6 years, there is no tangible difference between the performance of cementless HRA compared to hybrid HRA. The absence of learning curve associated with this device and the potential for better preservation of femoral neck bone mineral density suggest that this technology is well suited for young patients with good bone quality seeking to resume an active lifestyle including high-impact activities.

Hip resurfacing in patients with severe osteoarthritis and blocked medullary canal

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the effectiveness of hip resurfacing in patients with femoral deformities or retained femoral implants. Implant removal and conversion total hip replacement (CTHR) have been associated with increased operative time, blood loss, and cost. Removing intramedullary nails in particular can be difficult and can result in a more difficult recovery and/or complications. Hip resurfacing can be performed with a blocked femoral canal and has the possible additional benefits of a less-complex procedure, improved functional outcomes, better patient survivorship, and a possibly less-complicated revision should a failure occur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The author performed hip resurfacing in 61 patients (65 hips) with a blocked femur who had been advised elsewhere that they could not undergo THR without also undergoing additional surgical procedures. The perioperative complexity of resurfacing was evaluated by recording operative time, blood loss and functional outcomes using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Implant survivorship was evaluated by the need for revision surgery.

RESULTS

At 9 years' mean follow-up (range 5-19 years), 59 of the 61 patients presented for postoperative evaluation. The mean operative time was 104 minutes and the mean blood loss was 300 cc. The mean HHS improved from 41 to 92 ( p < 0.001) and the mean SF-12 physical and mental scores improved from 26 to 49 and from 44 to 54, respectively ( p < 0.001). None of the procedures failed or required revision.

CONCLUSION

Canal-sparing hip resurfacing is a successful and less complicated option than CTHR when there is deformity or retained implant blocking the femoral canal.

Wear testing of a canine hip resurfacing implant that uses highly cross-linked polyethylene

Hip resurfacing offers advantages for young, active patients afflicted with hip osteoarthritis and may also be a beneficial treatment for adult canines. Conventional hip resurfacing uses metal-on-metal bearings to preserve bone stock, but it may be feasible to use metal-on-polyethylene bearings to reduce metal wear debris while still preserving bone. This study characterized the short-term wear behavior of a novel hip resurfacing implant for canines that uses a 1.5 mm thick liner of highly cross-linked polyethylene in the acetabular component. This implant was tested in an orbital bearing machine that simulated canine gait for 1.1 million cycles. Wear of the liner was evaluated using gravimetric analysis and by measuring wear depth with an optical scanner. The liners had a steady-state mass wear rate of 0.99 ± 0.17 mg per million cycles and an average wear depth in the central liner region of 0.028 mm. No liners, shells, or femoral heads had any catastrophic failure due to yielding or fracture. These results suggest that the thin liners will not prematurely crack after implantation in canines. This is the first hip resurfacing device developed for canines, and this study is the first to characterize the in vitro wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene liners in a hip resurfacing implant. The canine implant developed in this study may be an attractive treatment option for canines afflicted with hip osteoarthritis, and since canines are the preferred animal model for human hip replacement, this implant can support the development of metal-on-polyethylene hip resurfacing technology for human patients. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1196-1205, 2018.

Hip Resurfacing Using Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene: Prospective Study Results at 8.5 Years

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing is an option to consider when treating younger, more active patients. Advantages over total hip arthroplasty include a more normal gait and a lower incidence of thigh pain.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 190 hip resurfacing procedures (164 participants) were performed using a cobalt-chromium femoral component and a cementless acetabular cup with a 3.8-mm highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 8.5 (range, 7-10) years. Two participants were lost to follow-up and 2 died. One participant underwent successful revision surgery for acetabular loosening. Four participants underwent successful revision to a total hip arthroplasty because of femoral neck fracture (2), femoral loosening, or infection. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 97%. Acetabular bone conservation was assessed using computed tomography by measuring the medial acetabular wall. The mean thickness was 9 mm. Femoral bone was well preserved with a mean head:neck ratio of 1.37. There were 4 (2%) osteolytic defects up to 0.9 cm(3) on computed tomography and no instances of impending polyethylene wear-through. Seven polyethylene retrievals had a measured wear rate of 0.05 mm/y.

CONCLUSION

Hip resurfacing using a highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular component is a reliable procedure. Both femoral and acetabular bones are reasonably preserved compared with prior resurfacing methods. The low incidence of osteolysis and the low rate of wear found on retrievals suggest that many years of use in highly active patients is possible.

Hip resurfacing

Hip resurfacing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty in young, active patients. Much has been learned following the introduction of metal-on-metal resurfacing devices in the 1990s. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical than with these implants.

Following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006, we studied the safety and effectiveness of one hip resurfacing device (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) at our hospital in a large, single-surgeon series. We report our early to mid–term results in 1333 cases followed for a mean of 4.3 years (2 to 5.7) using a prospective, observational registry. The mean patient age was 53.1 years (12 to 84); 70% were male and 91% had osteoarthritis. Complications were few, including no dislocations, no femoral component loosening, two femoral neck fractures (0.15%), one socket loosening (0.08%), three deep infections (0.23%), and three cases of metallosis (0.23%). There were no destructive pseudotumours.

Overall survivorship at up to 5.7 years was 99.2%. Aseptic survivorship in males under the age of 50 was 100%. We believe this is the largest United States series of a single surgeon using a single resurfacing system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B (1 Suppl A):10–13.