High-level judo practice after hip resurfacing

Conversion of hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: is the outcome closer to primary or revision total hip arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Along with the advent of newer bearings, hip resurfacing (HR) is gaining renewed interest as a bone sparing alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young patients. However, the outcome of conversion of failed HR to THA (HRc) remains sparsely described. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complication rates of HRc to those of primary (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) to find out to which group HRc is most comparable.

HYPOTHESIS

The study hypothesis was that the outcomes and complications rates of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than rTHA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2011, a continuous series of 207 HR were prospectively included in our institutional registry and retrospectively analyzed. Out of them, 17 HR (8%) were converted to THA. Propensity scores were used to match patients in the HRc group to the pTHA and the rTHA groups using a greedy 1:3 matching procedure (51 pTHA and 51 rTHA). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, perioperative data and complications were analyzed and compared between the three groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference between HRc and pTHA was observed in terms of clinical and functional outcomes, duration of surgery, acetabular component diameter and length of hospital stay (p = 0.13 to 0.94). Perioperative blood loss was significantly lower for pTHA than for HRc (p = 0.01). HRc demonstrated significantly higher HHS and HOOS scores than for rTHA at one year (p = 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Duration of surgery was significantly lower in HRc compared to rTHA (p = 0.02) while length of hospital stay was similar (p = 0.84). Complication rate was significantly higher in the rTHA group, compared to HRc and pTHA groups (37.3 vs. 29.4 vs. 11.8%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the clinical and functional outcomes of HRc were closer to those of pTHA than those of rTHA, though complication rate was higher than for pTHA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Retrospective comparative study.

Resurfacing Hip Arthroplasty Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Total Hip Arthroplasty in Young Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed at comparing resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of rate of complications, revisions, functional outcomes, blood loss, operative time and metal ions levels. The search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science) updated until 13 October 2022. The inclusion criteria were RCTs) written in the English language, with no time limitation, comparing RHA and THA. Among the retrieved 4748 articles, 18 RCTs were eligible for a total of 776 patients (mean age 53.1 ± 5.0). A meta-analysis was performed. RHA reported significantly lower blood loss compared to THA (p < 0.001) but with longer operative time (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between RHA and THA in terms of complications (12.08% and 16.24%, respectively) and revisions (6.32% and 6.14%, respectively). Both RHA and THA provide excellent clinical results in a population of young and active patients. Functional outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. Moreover, no significant difference in metal ion levels was found. These findings provide evidence concerning the safety and clinical effectiveness of RHA. Because of its bone-preserving properties, the lack of drawbacks and good outcomes, RHA appears to be a valid alternative to THA in young and active patients.

French hip resurfacing registry: A study of 1650 cases

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing has been the focus of many evaluations based on international registries but, to date, no prospective studies have evaluated this procedure in France. In 2015, the French Society for Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SoFCOT) and the French Hip and Knee Society concluded an agreement with the French Medicines Agency (ANSM) and French National Health Authority (HAS) to establish an exhaustive observational hip resurfacing registry. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the hip resurfacing survival rate since the creation of the registry 5 years ago. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing and to check the absence of specific complications related to this implant.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that the registry survival rate was below 0.5% per year.

METHODS

Since 2015, data from all patients undergoing hip resurfacing were collected into a monitored database using the software suite OrthoWave. The following were collected for each patient: demographics, anthropometric characteristics, clinical parameters (Postel Merle d'Aubigné score, Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, and UCLA Activity Score), and radiological findings. Completeness of data collection was checked once a year.

RESULTS

In total, 1650 hip resurfacings in 1506 patients (1409 males and 97 females) with a mean age of 50.7 years (range, 17-70 years) were included. Mean follow-up was 3.8 years (range, 2-4.8 years). Mean completeness of data recording was 98.2%. All clinical scores improved significantly. Hip revision was required for 7 (0.4%) complications including 4 femoral neck fractures, 1 aseptic lymphocyte-dominant vasculitis-associated lesion with a large joint effusion, 1 femoral component loosening, and 1 delayed sepsis requiring bipolar removal. At 5 years, the survival rate without hip revision for any cause was 99.6% (95% confidence interval, 99.3-100%).

DISCUSSION

The short-term outcomes of patients in the French registry are encouraging in terms of complication and surgical revision rates. The near absence of complications related to metal-on-metal bearing surfaces demonstrates that the criteria used in France (at least 48mm head diameter, use of implants for which long-term data are available, and specific training of surgeons) ensure successful long-term outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.