Minimum Five-Year Outcomes of Hip Resurfacing: Propensity-Score Matched Against Total Hip Arthroplasty Control Groups

Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

This retrospective medium-term follow-up study compares the outcomes of medial fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) using a cemented metal-backed (MB) or an all-polyethylene (AP) tibial component.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The database of our institution was mined for primary mUKA patients implanted with an MB or an AP tibial component (the MB-UKA and AP-UKA groups, respectively) from 2015 to 2018. We compared patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and motion analysis data obtained with the Riablo™ system (CoRehab, Trento, Italy). We conducted propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis (1:1) using multiple variables.

RESULTS

PSM analysis yielded 77 pairs of MB-UKA and AP-UKA patients. At 5 years, the physical component summary (PCS) score was 52.4 ± 8.3 in MB-UKA and 48.2 ± 8.3 in AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) was 82.9 ± 18.8 in MB-UKAs and 73.4 ± 22.5 in AP-UKAs (p = 0.015). Tibial pain was reported by 7.8% of the MB-UKA and 35.1% of the AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). Static postural sway was, respectively, 3.9 ± 2.1 cm and 5.4 ± 2.3 (p = 0.0002), and gait symmetry was, respectively, 92.7% ± 3.7 cm and 90.4% ± 5.4 cm (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction was 9.2 ± 0.8 in the MB-UKA and 8.3 ± 2.0 in the AP-UKA group (p < 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

MB-UKA patients experienced significantly better 5-year static sway and gait symmetry outcomes than AP-UKA patients. Although the PROMs of the two groups overlapped, MB-UKA patients had a lower incidence of tibial pain, better FJS-12 and PCS scores, and were more satisfied.

Systematic evaluation of the degree of joint amnesia in patients after total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with posterior approach (PA)

OBJECTIVE

A comparative study of joint amnesia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach and posterior approach was conducted through a comprehensive evaluation.

METHODS

The literature on joint amnesia in postoperative patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach was systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP databases from the time of library construction until February 13, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software after independent searching, screening of the literature, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies by two investigators in strict accordance with the guidelines for conducting meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of one RCT and six cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results indicated that at 1 month postoperatively (MD = 2.08, 95% CI (0.20, 3.96), P = 0.03), 3 months (MD = 10.08, 95% CI (1.20, 18.96), P = 0.03), and 1 year (MD = 6.74, 95% CI (1.30, 12.19), P = 0.02), DAA total hip arthroplasty was associated with better FJS compared to PA at 1 year postoperatively. However, there was no statistical significance in FJS between the two groups at 5 years postoperatively (MD = 1.35, 95% CI (- 0.58, 3.28), P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that the degree of joint amnesia after THA for DAA was not found to be superior to that of PA. Further, these findings require confirmation by including a larger number of high-quality randomized controlled studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Joint awareness among total hip arthroplasty patients operated through anterior approach versus posterior approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare joint awareness in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) via the anterior approach (AA) versus the posterior approach (PA). The hypothesis was that patients who underwent THA via AA would have better forgetfulness of the artificial joint.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of major literature databases and bibliographic details was conducted to identify studies evaluating the forgotten joint score (FJS-12) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients operated through the anterior approach (AA) and posterior approach (PA). Out of 234 studies identified, seven studies met the inclusion criteria for review. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and the risk of bias in the included studies. The FJS-12 was evaluated at three months, one year, and beyond 2 years.

RESULTS

The mean FJS-12 at > 2 years was 82.03 in the AA group and 80.32 in the PA group. The forest plot analysis (n = 819 patients) revealed no significant difference in FJS-12 score between these two approaches (MD 2.13, 95% CI [- 1.17, 5.42], p = 0.21; I2 = 60%). However, the joint awareness was significantly lesser in the AA group at 3 months (MD 12.56, 95% CI [9.58, 15.54], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and 1 year (MD 9.55, 95% CI [7.85, 11.24], p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

After analyzing the available literature, it was found that THA patients operated through the AA approach have significantly lower joint awareness than those operated through the PA approach in the first year of surgery. However, there is no significant difference in joint awareness between these two approaches after 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Hip Resurfacing: A Single Surgeon U.S. Series With Minimum Ten-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to determine implant survivorship, analyze patient-reported outcomes measures and to determine patient satisfaction for patients who underwent metal-on-metal hip resurfacing at a large US academic institution by a single surgeon with a minimum of 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hip resurfacing from September 2006 through November 2009 were included. Patient demographics and variables were collected from a prospectively maintained institutional database and patients completed an additional questionnaire with patient-reported outcomes measures.

RESULTS

A total of 350 patients (389 hips) out of 371 (433 hips) with a minimum 10-year follow-up were successfully contacted (94.3% follow-up). Mean age was 53 years, 258 were male (73%). 377 out of 389 hips (96.9%) did not require additional surgery. Gender was significantly related to implant survivorship (males 99.0%, females 90.9%; P < .001). 330 patients (369 hips, 94.8%) were satisfied with their surgery. Males had higher proportion of satisfaction scores (P = .02) and higher modified Harris Hip Score (odds ratio = 2.63 (1.39, 4.98), P = .003). Median modified Harris Hip Score score for non-revised hips was 84.0 [80.0; 86.0] versus those requiring revision, 81.5 [74.0; 83.0], (P = .009).

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 10-year follow-up, hip resurfacing, using an implant with a good track record, demonstrates 99.0% survivorship in male patients with an average age of 52 years. We believe that the continued use of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty in this population is justified by both positive patient reported outcomes and survivorship.