Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: A Single Surgeon Series Reported at a Minimum of 10 Years Follow-Up

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.

Long-Term Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Independent Series with At Least 10 Years of Follow-up

Background

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) provides an attractive alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the management of osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients; however, concerns persist over complications specific to HRA. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the documented long-term survival rates of the metal-on-metal BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System at a follow-up of at least 10 years and to analyze the functional outcomes and cause of failures.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken of all published cohort studies available in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed research databases up to December 2021, as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data extraction was focused on survival rates, causes of failure, and functional outcomes. Survival estimates at 10 years were pooled in a meta-analysis, with each series weighted by its variance. Causes of failure were presented as a percentage of the pooled revisions.

Results

A total of 11 studies were identified, encompassing 3,129 cases. Across the 9 studies that had reported a mean follow-up, the mean follow-up was 11.7 years (range, 9.55 to 13.7 years). We found a pooled 10-year survival rate of 95.5% (95% confidence interval, 93.4% to 97.1%). There were 149 revisions among the studies (range, 4 to 38 revisions per study), a rate of 4.8% of the total procedures performed. The 2 main causes of revision were aseptic loosening (20.1% of revisions) and adverse reactions to metal debris (20.1%). There were no revisions for dislocation. Of the studies that reported preoperative functional scores, all reported significant improvement in mean scores postoperatively except for 1 study in which the mean Tegner activity score did not significantly improve.

Conclusions

When performed for appropriate indications, patients undergoing an HRA with use of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System can expect good implant survivorship at 10 years with acceptable functional results and low rates of dislocation and infection. This systematic review, however, confirms concerns regarding adverse reactions to metal debris as a leading cause of revision.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review of outcomes at minimum 10-years follow-up

Although controversy surrounding the use of metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasty implants continues to exist, satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes have been reported following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) at long-term follow-up, leading to an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of 13A. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the functional outcomes, radiological outcomes and revision rates following BHR at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. Using the PRISMA guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases. Only studies reporting on outcomes of BHR with a minimum of 10 years' follow-up were considered for inclusion. A total of 12 studies including 7132 hips (64.8% males), with mean follow-up of 11.5 years (10-15.3), met our inclusion criteria. Of included patients, 94.3% of patient underwent BHR for osteoarthritis at a mean age was 52.0 years (48-52). At final follow-up, 96% of patients reported being satisfied with their BHR, with mean Harris Hip Scores of 93.6 and Oxford Hip Scores of 16.5. Rates of radiological femoral neck narrowing of greater than 10% and non-progressive radiological loosening were reported as 2.0% and 3.8% respectively. At final follow-up, the overall revision rate was 4.9% (334/7132), deep infection rate was 0.4%, metal allergy/insensitivity rate was 1.6%, metal reaction rate was 0.3%, rate of peri-prosthetic fracture was 0.9% and aseptic loosening rates were 1.6%. This systematic review demonstrates that BHR results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, acceptable implant survivorship, low complication rates and modest surgical revision rates in the long-term at minimum 10-year follow-up.

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.

Computational modelling of hip resurfacing arthroplasty investigating the effect of femoral version on hip biomechanics

Aim

How reduced femoral neck anteversion alters the distribution of pressure and contact area in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively describe the biomechanical implication of different femoral neck version angles on HRA using a finite element analysis.

Materials and methods

A total of sixty models were constructed to assess the effect of different femoral neck version angles on three different functional loads: 0°of hip flexion, 45°of hip flexion, and 90° of hip flexion. Femoral version was varied between 30° of anteversion to 30° of retroversion. All models were tested with the acetabular cup in four different positions: (1) 40°/15° (inclination/version), (2) 40°/25°, (3) 50°/15°, and (4) 50°/25°. Differences in range of motion due to presence of impingement, joint contact pressure, and joint contact area with different femoral versions and acetabular cup positions were calculated.

Results

Impingement was found to be most significant with the femur in 30° of retroversion, regardless of acetabular cup position. Anterior hip impingement occurred earlier during hip flexion as the femur was progressively retroverted. Impingement was reduced in all models by increasing acetabular cup inclination and anteversion, yet this consequentially led to higher contact pressures. At 90° of hip flexion, contact pressures and contact areas were inversely related and showed most notable change with 30° of femoral retroversion. In this model, the contact area migrated towards the anterior implant-bone interface along the femoral neck.

Conclusion

Femoral retroversion in HRA influences impingement and increases joint contact pressure most when the hip is loaded in flexion. Increasing acetabular inclination decreases the area of impingement but doing so causes a reciprocal increase in joint contact pressure. It may be advisable to study femoral neck version pre-operatively to better choose hip resurfacing arthroplasty candidates.

Study to Assess the Rate of Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in Hip Resurfacing at a Minimum 13-year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Hip Resurfacing (HR), although reducing in popularity, is still used in the younger male population. Excellent medium-term results have been published; however, the use of metal on metal has reduced with increased awareness of adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). ARMD has been shown to often be clinically "silent" following large Head MoM total hip replacement (THR). The purpose of our study was to report the incidence of ARMD following HR with a minimum follow-up of 13 years.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a consecutive series of patients who underwent HR between January 1, 2000 and August 1, 2005. All patients were entered into our hospital MoM hip replacement surveillance program database. Patients were reviewed yearly for symptoms and blood ion levels. Patients had Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging to assess for ARMD.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients with 123 hip replacements were included in the study. Eight hips in 7 patients were revised: two for fracture, one for avascular necrosis, and five for ARMD. A best-case scenario of 109 (93.2%) resurfacings were surviving at 13 years. With regard to the radiological analysis, 34% were found to have ARMD on MR.

CONCLUSION

While the implant survivorship in our series is acceptable, we found a high incidence of ARMD. Surgeons and patients with or considering a HR should be aware of the risk of ARMD developing. This allows an informed choice as to the best implant for their personal requirement and informs of the potential modes of failure and need for long-term screening.

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.

An 18-year comparison of hybrid total hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients

AIM

To compare the long-term clinical and radiological results of metal-on-polyethylene hybrid total hip replacement (THA) with metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) in young, active patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From the 1st consecutive 63 hips in young, active patients who underwent BHR by the senior author, 54 (51 patients) were matched to patients who had undergone THA with regard to age, gender, body mass index and preoperative levels of activity. Radiologically, all hips were assessed for migration and osteolysis, THAs for polyethylene wear and BHRs for a pedestal sign. Patient-reported outcomes, mortality and revision rates were compared.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up of the patients with a hybrid THR was 19.9 years and for those with a BHR, 17.6 years. 13 patients with a hybrid THR and 5 with a BHR had died. 1 hybrid THR and 3 BHRs were lost to follow-up. The revision rate of the hybrid THRs was 14/54 and of the BHRs 6/54. Log rank comparison of Kaplan-Meier survival estimates demonstrated a significantly lower mortality in the BHR group (p = 0.039; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.95]) but a non-significant difference in revision rates (p = 0.067; HR = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.18-1.06]). The BHRs recorded superior OHS (p = 0.03), UCLA (p = 0.0096), and EuroQol visual analogue scores (p = 0.03). Significantly more BHRs had run, played sport and undertaken heavy manual labour in the month preceding follow-up.

CONCLUSION

After 18 years, patients with BHRs remained more active with a lower mortality rate but demonstrated no significant difference in revision rates. Both groups demonstrated progressive radiological changes at long-term follow-up.

The outcome and survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients aged less than 50 years

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a consecutive series of patients aged less than 50 years at the time of arthroplasty using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system (BHR), with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Patients and Methods

A total of 226 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, who underwent BHR and presented to a single surgeon, were included in the study. Survival of the implant was confirmed by cross-checking with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Kaplan–Meier survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed. Pre- and postoperative PROMs were compared with t-tests, and postoperative scores were compared using anchor analysis with age and gender matched normative data.

Results

At median follow-up of 12 years (interquartile range (IQR) 10 to 13), six BHRs were revised, with a cumulative rate of survival of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.2 to 99.4) at 15 years, and with a significantly lower (p = 0.019) cumulative rate of revision than the national average for the same device at ten years. Most revisions (n = 4) were undertaken early, less than three years postoperatively, and occurred in women. Patient-reported general health (Veteran’s Rand-36), disease state (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), function (modified Harris Hip Score) and level of activity (Tegner activity score) maintained significant (p < 0.01 for each) improvements beyond ten years postoperatively and were equal to, or exceeded, age- and gender-matched normative data in more than 80% of the patients.

Conclusion

Longer term PROMs after BHR, from a single surgeon, for patients aged less than 50 years remain under-reported. We found that the outcome after a BHR, at a minimum of ten years postoperatively, remained satisfactory, particularly for self-reported hip function.

Five to Ten-Year Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Implant in the U.S.: A Single Institution's Experience

BACKGROUND

International surgeon series and registry data have demonstrated positive outcomes and long-term survival of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. We report the 5 to 10-year results from a single center in the U.S.

METHODS

Three hundred and fourteen patients (360 hips) underwent surface replacement arthroplasty with use of the BHR implant and consented to study participation. Patient-reported outcomes and complication and revision data were collected at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up for 93% (324 of 350) of the hips in surviving patients. A matched-cohort analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes between use of the BHR and total hip arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Mean modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores significantly improved postoperatively, to 89.9 and 8.0, respectively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of survival for all-cause revision was 97.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7% to 98.5%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 88.8% to 96.7%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. In a subgroup analysis of patients fitting our current BHR inclusion criteria (males <60 years of age with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and anatomy conducive to a femoral head component of ≥48 mm), survival free of aseptic revision was 99.5% (95% CI, 96.6% to 99.9%) at 5 years and 98.2% (95% CI, 94.4% to 99.4%) at 10 years. Fourteen patients (4.3% of all hips) required revision. Postoperative UCLA scores were significantly greater for BHR compared with total hip arthroplasty (mean score of 8.0 ± 2.0 versus 7.6 ± 1.8; p = 0.040) in a matched-cohort analysis, with patients matched according to preoperative UCLA score, diagnosis, age, sex, and body mass index. Among matched patients who were highly active preoperatively (UCLA score of 9 to 10), BHR provided a smaller median decrease in the postoperative UCLA score (0.0 versus 1.0; p < 0.001), which was clinically important according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 0.92). Furthermore, BHR provided a greater likelihood of remaining highly active compared with total hip arthroplasty (61% compared with 20%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes at 5 to 10 years in selected patients. As compared with total hip arthroplasty, the use of the BHR may provide highly active patients with clinically important advantages in postoperative activity as well as a greater likelihood of remaining highly active. Continued follow-up is necessary to validate long-term BHR outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prevention of Dislocation After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Prevention of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) begins with patient preoperative assessment and planning.

METHODS

We performed a literature search to assess historical perspectives and current strategies to prevent dislocation after primary THA. The search yielded 3458 articles, and 154 articles are presented.

RESULTS

Extremes of age, body mass index >30 kg/m², lumbosacral pathology, surgeon experience, and femoral head size influence dislocation rates after THA. There is mixed evidence regarding the effect of neuromuscular disease, sequelae of pediatric hip conditions, and surgical approach on THA instability. Sex, simultaneous bilateral THA, and restrictive postoperative precautions do not influence the dislocation rates of THA. Navigation, robotics, lipped liners, and dual-mobility acetabular components may improve dislocation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Risks for dislocation should be identified, and measures should be taken to mitigate the risk. Reliance on safe zones of acetabular component positioning is historical. We are in an era of bespoke THA surgery.

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.

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing vs Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched-Pair Comparison of Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) has proven to be a good alternative for younger patients with osteoarthritis. Some have asserted that BHR may yield outcomes which are superior to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and that some studies which failed to show a difference were plagued by ceiling effects and lack of sensitivity of outcome measures. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of BHR and THA using the "Forgotten Joint" Score-12 (FJS), a more sensitive score with lesser vulnerability to the ceiling effect.

METHODS

Patients who underwent BHR were matched to patients who underwent posterior THA by computing a propensity score using 5 covariates: age, body mass index, gender, worker's compensation claims, and previous hip surgery. Surgical outcomes were assessed using 6 patient-reported outcome measures, including the FJS, the visual analog scale for pain, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 42 patients in the BHR group and 18 patients in the THA group. The FJS was 78.0 for the BHR group and 76.0 for the THA group. The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Mental Component Summary and Short Form 12 Mental Component Summary were significantly higher in the BHR group. No differences were seen between all other patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

BHR offers excellent results in young patients that are comparable to THA. As no clinical difference could be shown between BHR and THA, even with the use of the FJS, the choice between BHR and THA should not be based solely on any expectation that either yields superior clinical outcomes compared to the other at short-term follow-up.

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

Several reports have shown good long-term results with the Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty, but little is known about the results in Asian countries where there is a high prevalence of osteonecrosis and developmental dysplasia of the hip, and many females with small femoral head sizes. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the long-term clinical results of the BHR in 112 Japanese patients (53 males and 59 females-130 hips) with an average age of 52 years. Implant survivorship was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with the endpoint being revision for any reason. Factors such as sex, femoral component size, and type of hip disease were analyzed as predictors of implant survivorship. With a median follow-up of 12 years, six cases were revised (two for femoral component aseptic loosening, two for infection, one for cup aseptic loosening, and one for femoral neck fracture), and the overall survival rate was 96.5% (95% CI 90.9-98.7) at 10 years and 93.6% (95% CI 83.4-97.7) at 15 years. When septic revisions were excluded, the implant survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9-99.6) at 10 years and 95.3% (95% CI 83.9-98.7) at 15 years. Sex, femoral component size, and type of hip disease were not predictors of implant survivorship. In conclusion, good clinical results were obtained with the BHR at 10- and 15-year follow-up in Japanese patients who have different stature and types of hip diseases as compared with patients in Western countries.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 10 years: results from an independent centre

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) has been proposed as an effective surgical treatment for young and active patients with symptomatic hip disease. Recently, good clinical and radiographic outcomes have been reported by the designer surgeons at a 15.3 years follow-up; however, results at long follow-up by non-designer surgeons are less satisfactory. The aim of the study was to investigate if MoMHR can produce satisfactory clinical and radiographic results and if survival rate can be high even if the procedure is performed by non-designer surgeons.

METHODS

All patients were assessed about implant survival. All patients completed an Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS) and a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score preoperatively, at 1 year and at last available follow-up; at this time, a standard anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph was performed.

RESULTS

The survival rate with revision for any reason is 96%, similar to those obtained by designer surgeons. All the clinical scores improved over time: according to the OHS the survivors are asymptomatic and according to the UCLA maintain a high level of function. 6 remodellings of the femoral neck and 2 heterotopic bone formations were seen, but they were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

As designer surgeons have already shown, MoMHR can provide in active patients a durable treatment for hip arthritis, with low risk of revision and good results at 10 years follow-up, even if the procedure is performed by non-designer surgeons.

Mid-Term Results and Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing

BACKGROUND

Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) is the only Food and Drug Administration approved resurfacing option currently available in the United States. While adequate BHR outcomes are established, there is a paucity of US-based literature demonstrating factors critical to improve patient reported outcomes (PROs). This study answers: (1) What is the implant survivorship in a large US cohort? (2) Which preoperative factors result in higher PRO scores over 5 years postoperatively?

METHODS

A retrospective 541 hip single-surgeon cohort with mean of 6.2 years follow-up (range 5-8.1) was collected. Preoperative patient/implant variables, including postoperative radiographic acetabular inclination and femoral component position, clinical outcomes, and follow-up PRO questionnaire information were collected. Validated PROs included the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Veterans Rand-12, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity. PROs were modeled with ordinary least squares then used to create nomograms.

RESULTS

Average patient age was 53 years with 391 (72%) males. Seven hips were revised, resulting in an overall survival of 98.8% at 5 years. Predictive modeling identified preoperative variables (sex, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidity) that had statistically significant associations with HOOS pain (P = .049), HOOS activities of daily living (P = .017), UCLA activity (P < .001), and Veterans Rand-12 physical (P < .001) PROs at latest follow-up. Nomograms predicted follow-up PROs using preoperative patient-specific variables.

CONCLUSION

This study documents excellent survival of the largest reported single-center cohort of BHRs in the United States with a mean 6.2 years follow-up. Multivariate modeling shows male nonsmokers with low body mass index, and no comorbidities will have less hip pain, better function in daily life, higher activity, and better general physical health after BHR arthroplasty.

Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Hip Resurfacing Revision: A Cohort Study Into the Second Decade After the Operation

BACKGROUND

Most metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs have experienced high short-term failure rates because of pseudotumors. The impact of this complication into the second decade after the procedure is unknown. We investigated (1) the prevalence of, and risk factors for, all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision at up to 15 years following MoMHR and (2) whether risk factors were sex-specific.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study included 1,429 MoMHRs (1216 patients; 40% female) implanted between 1999 and 2009. Patients were contacted in 2010 and 2012 as per national recommendations. Patients with symptoms related to the hip and/or suboptimal Oxford Hip Scores (≤41 of 48 points) underwent cross-sectional imaging and blood metal-ion sampling. Revision diagnoses were established using operative and histopathological findings. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of predictor variables with the time to all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty MoMHRs (12.6%) were revised for all causes, and 111 (7.8% of the series and 61.7 % of all revisions) were revised because of pseudotumor. Survival analysis showed the 15-year cumulative revision rate for all causes to be 19.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.2% to 23.2%) and the 15-year rate of revision due to pseudotumor to be 14.0% (95% CI = 11.0% to 17.7%). Small femoral head size (hazard ratio [HR] per 2 mm = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and certain implant designs (HR = 1.55 to 3.01; p ≤ 0.029) significantly increased the all-cause revision risk. Female sex (HR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.19 to 3.44; p = 0.009) and young age (HR per year = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.00; p = 0.020) significantly increased the pseudotumor-related revision risk but not the all-cause revision risk. Risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumor-related revision were sex-specific. In females, small femoral head size (p = 0.014) increased the all-cause revision risk, and young age was the only predictor of pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.019). In males, implant design was the only predictor of all-cause revision (p ≤ 0.015) and pseudotumor-related revision (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence and rates of revision for all causes and pseudotumor were high at up to 15 years following MoMHR. Predictors of revision differed between all-cause and pseudotumor-related revisions and were sex-specific. These factors must be appropriately weighted when risk-stratifying patients with MoMHRs for surveillance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional, stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA). The best reported results are young, active patients with good bone stock and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Since the 1990s, metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA has achieved excellent outcomes when used in the appropriate patient population. Concerns regarding the metal-on-metal bearing surface including adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to metal debris have recently lead to a decline in the use of this construct. The current paper aims to provide an updated review on HRA, including a critical review of the most recent literature on HRA.