A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3-6 years follow-up

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.

Metal-on-Metal Hips: Ten-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the ADEPT Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to update the 10-year follow-up survivorship and metal ions levels of a cohort of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HR) and large-diameter-head (LDH) total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data that compared the outcomes of 24 MoM HR (21 patients) and 15 (11 patients) modular LHD MoM THA at >10 years follow-up. Baseline characteristics as well as intraoperative and postoperative information were collected, including complications, revisions, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and serum metal ions level (Cobalt, Chromium). Metal ion levels were compared using a two-tailed unpaired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test (jamovi v2.3.3.0, Sydney, NSW, AU).

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected in gender, BMI, and ASA score between the two groups. Patients in the modular THA group were significantly older (57 years vs. 46 years; p < 0.05). The HR overall survivorship was 91.7% (22 of 24 hips) with survivorship from implant failure and/or aseptic loosening and/or metal debris related 100% of problems. The modular THA overall survivorship was 86.7% (13 of 15 hips) with survivorship from implant aseptic loosening and metal ions complications of 93.4% (14 of 15 hips). No significant difference was noted when comparing clinical outcomes. Metal ions were significantly lower in the HR group (Co 25.8 nmol/L vs. 89 nmol/L; p < 0.001-Cr 33.5 nmol/L vs. 55.2 nmol/L; p = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

Both implants reported excellent and comparable clinical outcomes at >10 years follow-up. The Adept HR reported remarkable survivorship, in line with the registry data, proving once again its reliability in young active males. The modular LDH THA, despite being discontinued, presented higher reliability and a lower failure rate when compared with similar withdrawn MoM implants. Trunnionosis did not appear to be a significant problem in this particular modular design.

Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines.

DESIGN

Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Ten of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures-arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement-were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Summary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Randomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care.

CONCLUSIONS

Although they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018115917.

Despite higher revision rate, MoM large-head THA offers better clinical scores than HR: 14-year results from a randomized controlled trial involving 48 patients

BACKGROUND

The high failure rates of metal on metal (MoM) large diameter head total hip arthroplasty (LDH THA) and hip resurfacing (HR) prevented their long-term comparisons with regards to clinical outcome. Such knowledge would be important as ceramic LDH bearing is now available. With long-term follow-up, we investigated the difference in 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); 2) revision and adverse events rates, and 3) metal ion levels between MoM LDH THA and HR.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients were randomized for LDH THA (24) or HR (24) with the same MoM articulation. At a mean follow-up of 14 years, we compared between groups different PROMs, the number of revisions and adverse events, whole blood Cobalt (Co) and Chromium (Cr) ion levels, and radiographic signs of implant dysfunction.

RESULTS

LDH THA (all cases: revised and well-functioning) had significantly better WOMAC (94 versus 85, p = 0.04), and more frequently reported having no limitation (p = 0.04). LDH THA revision rate was 20.8% (5/24) versus 8.3% (2/24) for HR (p = 0.4). Mean Co and Cr ion levels were higher in LDH THA compared to the HR (Co: 3.8 μg/L vs 1.7 μg/L; p = 0.04 and Cr: 1.9 μg/L vs 1.4 μg/L, p = 0.1). On radiographic analyses, 2 LDH THAs showed signs of adverse reaction to metal debris, whereas 1 loose femoral HR component was documented.

CONCLUSION

In the long-term, MoM LDH THA had a high trunnion related revision rate but nonetheless showed better PROMs compared to HR. Provided with a well-functioning modular junction, non-MoM LDH THA would offer an appealing option.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04516239 ), August 18, 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Hip Resurfacing Compared with 28-mm Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Replacement: A Randomized Study with 15 Years of Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Bone stock conservation, hip anatomy preservation, and greater stability are among the promoted advantages of hip resurfacing (HR). However, the disappointing failure of some implants nearly led to its abandonment. The aim of this study was to compare clinical scores and revision and complication rates after HR with those after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Two hundred and three hips were randomized to 28-mm metal-on-metal (MoM) THA (99 hips) or to HR (104 hips). Main outcome measures compared between groups were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, the revision rate, and the complication rates. The radiographic findings were also assessed.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 15 years (range, 14 to 16 years), 9 (4.4%) of the 203 patients were lost to follow-up and 15 (7.4%) had died. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship, with revision for any reason as the end point, was 89.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.3% to 96.1%) for HR and 94.2% (95% CI, 89.3% to 99.1%) for THA (p = 0.292). The reasons for revision included infection (3 patients), recurrent dislocation (1 patient), and adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) (1 patient) in the THA group and ARMD (2 patients) and femoral head loosening (7 patients) in the HR group. With aseptic revision as the end point, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was significantly higher in the THA group (97.4% versus 89.2%; p = 0.033). No dislocation occurred in the HR group compared with 4 in the THA group (p = 0.058). Both groups achieved a similar mean WOMAC score (10.7 in the HR group and 8.8 in the THA group; p = 0.749), Forgotten Joint Score (87.1 and 85.3, respectively; p = 0.410), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score (6.3 and 6.4, respectively; p = 0.189), and overall joint perception (p = 0.251).

CONCLUSIONS

The specific HR and MoM 28-mm THA implants used in this study showed good long-term survival and function. The overall rates of complications and revisions were similar in both groups but were of different types. As it provides better femoral bone preservation and biomechanical reconstruction, HR may continue to have a role in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons and using validated implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Preliminary report of clinical experience with metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene hip resurfacing

Objectives

Modern metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), while achieving good results with well-orientated, well-designed components in ideal patients, is contraindicated in women, men with head size under 50 mm, or metal hypersensitivity. These patients currently have no access to the benefits of HRA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) has demonstrated clinical success in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, when used in HRA, potentially reduces metal ion-related sequelae. We report the early performance of HRA using a direct-to-bone cementless mono-bloc XLPE component coupled with a cobalt-chrome femoral head, in the patient group for whom HRA is currently contraindicated.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional, observational assessment of 88 consecutive metal-on-XLPE HRAs performed in 84 patients between 2015 and 2018 in three centres (three surgeons, including the designer surgeon). Mean follow-up is 1.6 years (0.7 to 3.9). Mean age at operation was 56 years (sd 11; 21 to 82), and 73% of implantations were in female patients. All patients were individually counselled, and a detailed informed consent was obtained prior to operation. Primary resurfacing was carried out in 85 hips, and three cases involved revision of previous MoM HRA. Clinical, radiological, and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) assessments were studied, along with implant survival.

Results

There was no loss to follow-up and no actual or impending revision or reoperation. Median OHS increased from 24 (interquartile range (IQR) 20 to 28) preoperatively to 48 (IQR 46 to 48) at the latest follow-up (48 being the best possible score). Radiographs showed one patient had a head-neck junction lucency. No other radiolucency, osteolysis, component migration, or femoral neck thinning was noted.

Conclusion

The results in this small consecutive cohort suggest that metal-on-monobloc-XLPE HRA is successful in the short term and merits further investigation as a conservative alternative to the current accepted standard of stemmed THA. However, we would stress that survival data with longer-term follow-up are needed prior to widespread adoption.

Cite this article: R. B. C. Treacy, J. P. Holland, J. Daniel, H. Ziaee, D. J. W. McMinn. Preliminary report of clinical experience with metal-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene hip resurfacing. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:443–450. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0060.R1

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.

Joint Perception After Total Hip Arthroplasty and the Forgotten Joint

BACKGROUND

Assessing patients' functional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty with traditional scoring systems is limited by their ceiling effects. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has been suggested as a more discriminating option. The actual score in the FJS which constitutes a "forgotten joint," however, has not been defined. The emerging concept of joint perception led to the development of the Patient's Joint Perception question (PJP) to assess the patient's opinion of their prosthetic joint.

METHODS

Two hundred fifty-seven total hip arthroplasties were assessed at a mean of 68 months of follow-up (range 57-79). Outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), FJS, and PJP. Correlation of the scores as well as the ceiling effects were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean FJS was 88.5 (range 27.1-100). PJP was correlated with the FJS and WOMAC (Spearman's rho -0.510 and 0.465, respectively). Fifty-two percent of the patients felt their hip as a natural joint (FJS: 95% confidence interval [CI] 93.3-96.0), 24.1% as an artificial joint with no restriction (FJS: 95% CI 83.1-90.5), and 23.3% as an artificial joint with minor restrictions (FJS: 95% CI 73.8-82.2). Only 0.8% had major restrictions and none reported a non-functional joint. The ceiling effect was high with both the WOMAC and FJS, with 27.2% and 31.9%. In addition, 28.6% of the patients had a WOMAC >10 and 23.4% an FJS <90 while reporting having a natural hip. Furthermore, 21.5% with a perfect WOMAC or 21.9% with a perfect FJS reported having an artificial joint with or without limitation.

CONCLUSION

A forgotten hip perception corresponds to an FJS >93. In 20%-30% of the cases, the WOMAC and FJS failed to identify the forgotten joint, or reached the maximum score when the patients did not feel their hip was natural. The PJP is a simple and reliable tool that enables identification of patients who feel replaced hip is natural.

Normative Functional Outcomes as a New Outcome Assessment Tool Following Hip Procedures

Patient-reported outcome measures play an important role in evaluating the functional outcome of surgical and nonsurgical treatments of the hip joint. One thousand healthy volunteers completed the modified Harris hip score, the University of California, Los Angeles score, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. Between September 2010 and December 2015, a total of 127 periacetabular osteotomies were performed in 111 patients with symptomatic developmental dysplasia of the hip. Forty-two of these patients (10 male and 32 female) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 32 months (range, 13-59 months). Pre- and postoperative radiographic analysis of the lateral center-edge angle and the acetabular index was conducted in all cases with a proper pelvic anteroposterior radiograph. The patients completed the modified Harris hip score, the University of California, Los Angeles score, the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. The authors investigated the influence of various confounding variables to (1) obtain recommendations when outcome scores are being compared between 2 cohorts and (2) define a normative reference level of "hip-healthy" functionality. This normative level of functionality was used as a target level of functionality following a hip procedure such as periacetabular osteotomy. All functional outcome scores had significantly improved 1 year after periacetabular osteotomy; thus, patients were much better than preoperatively. However, only 55% achieved the 95% functionality of the normative population based on modified Harris hip score and University of California, Los Angeles score. The results were worse for the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales. This approach places the results of surgical procedures in a different but potentially more realistic perspective in terms of expectations and goals. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):e663-e670.].

Metal on Metal or Ceramic on Ceramic for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hard bearings, metal on metal (MOM) and ceramic on ceramic (COC), have been developed to overcome polyethylene wear-related osteolysis, but comparisons between these 2 hard bearings are limited. We performed a meta-analysis to determine revision rates for (1) any reason, (2) aseptic loosening, (3) periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and (4) recurrent dislocation between MOM and COC bearings in cementless total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

This analysis included 3 studies comparing COC and MOM bearings and 56 studies reporting outcomes of MOM or COC bearings. We conducted a comparison meta-analysis (with a fixed-effects model) on the 3 comparative studies and a proportional meta-analysis on the data from the 59 articles to determine a consensus.

RESULTS

In the comparison meta-analysis, MOM showed higher revision rate than COC for any reason (odds ratio = 2.39, P = .046) and PJI (odds ratio = 6.21, P = .015). In the proportion meta-analysis, the MOM group showed significantly higher revision rate than COC group for any reason, aseptic loosening, and PJI.

CONCLUSION

MOM bearings were associated with a higher risk of revision for any reason and PJI than COC bearings after cementless total hip arthroplasty.

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.

Revision Rate and Patient-Reported Outcome After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Concise Follow-Up of 1064 Cases

We investigated survival and outcomes in 1064 HRA hips operated on between 1998 and 2009. After a mean of 7.8 years, 771 patients (72.4%) completed questionnaires, with a further 160 (15.0%) contacted by phone and 18 (1.7%) had died. There were 54 revisions. Overall implant survival at 10 years was 94.4%. Independent predictors of lower survival were female gender (P=0.015) and cup inclination ≥55° (P<0.001). Woman with cup inclination ≥55° had the highest failure rate with 10-year survival of 69.3%. Vertical cup inclination ≥55° did worse than cups <55° in both men and women. Overall men did better than women, and men with cups <55 degrees did best. Men had significantly better patient-reported outcome scores than woman.

Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) involves the replacement of a damaged hip joint with an artificial hip prosthesis. Resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) involves replacement of the joint surface of the femoral head with a metal surface covering.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of different types of THR and RS for the treatment of pain and disability in people with end-stage arthritis of the hip, in particular to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) different types of primary THR and RS for people in whom both procedures are suitable and (2) different types of primary THR for people who are not suitable for hip RS.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio Database were searched in December 2012, with searches limited to publications from 2008 and sample sizes of ≥ 100 participants. Reference lists and websites of manufacturers and professional organisations were also screened.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of THR and RS for people with end-stage arthritis of the hip. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were data extracted and risk of bias and methodological quality were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. A Markov multistate model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by sex and controlled for age were carried out to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 2469 records were screened of which 37 were included, representing 16 RCTs and eight systematic reviews. The mean post-THR Harris Hip Score measured at different follow-up times (from 6 months to 10 years) did not differ between THR groups, including between cross-linked polyethylene and traditional polyethylene cup liners (pooled mean difference 2.29, 95% confidence interval -0.88 to 5.45). Five systematic reviews reported evidence on different types of THR (cemented vs. cementless cup fixation and implant articulation materials) but these reviews were inconclusive. Eleven cost-effectiveness studies were included; four provided relevant cost and utility data for the model. Thirty registry studies were included, with no studies reporting better implant survival for RS than for all types of THR. For all analyses, mean costs for RS were higher than those for THR and mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were lower. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RS was dominated by THR, that is, THR was cheaper and more effective than RS (for a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost of RS was £11,284 and the incremental QALYs were -0.0879). For all age and sex groups RS remained clearly dominated by THR. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that, for all patients, THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. There were age and sex differences in the populations with different types of THR and variations in revision rates (from 1.6% to 3.5% at 9 years). For the base-case analysis, for all age and sex groups and a lifetime horizon, mean costs for category E (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) were slightly lower and mean QALYs for category E were slightly higher than those for all other THR categories in both deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Hence, category E dominated the other four categories. Sensitivity analysis using an age- and sex-adjusted log-normal model demonstrated that, over a lifetime horizon and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, categories A and E were equally likely (50%) to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

A large proportion of the included studies were inconclusive because of poor reporting, missing data, inconsistent results and/or great uncertainty in the treatment effect estimates. This warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. The evidence on complications was scarce, which may be because of the absence or rarity of these events or because of under-reporting. The poor reporting meant that it was not possible to explore contextual factors that might have influenced study results and also reduced the applicability of the findings to routine clinical practice in the UK. The scope of the review was limited to evidence published in English in 2008 or later, which could be interpreted as a weakness; however, systematic reviews would provide summary evidence for studies published before 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with THR, revision rates for RS were higher, mean costs for RS were higher and mean QALYs gained were lower; RS was dominated by THR. Similar results were obtained in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses and for all age and sex groups THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. Revision rates for all types of THR were low. Category A THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-metal articulation) was more cost-effective for older age groups. However, across all age-sex groups combined, the mean cost for category E THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) was slightly lower and the mean QALYs gained were slightly higher. Category E therefore dominated the other four categories. Certain types of THR appeared to confer some benefit, including larger femoral head sizes, use of a cemented cup, use of a cross-linked polyethylene cup liner and a ceramic-on-ceramic as opposed to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Further RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003924.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparison of Acetabular Bone Resection, Offset, Leg Length and Post Operative Function Between Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty

Controversy exists regarding the amount of acetabular bone resection, biomechanics and function of patients receiving either total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). A cohort of patients undergoing 36 mm ceramic-on-ceramic THA (89) or metal-on-metal HRA (86) were compared. No difference was observed when the ratio of native femoral head size was compared to the implanted acetabular component size (1.15 ± 0.1 HRA c.f. 1.13 ± 0.1 THA). No difference was observed in acetabular offset, vertical centre of rotation or function (OHS mean 47 in both groups) but leg length discrepancy (1.8 mm c.f. 5.5 mm) and femoral offset did differ (0.6 mm c.f. 4.1 mm). This demonstrates that 36 mm ceramic-on-ceramic THA is not associated with more bone resection than HRA and achieves equivalent function whilst avoiding the problems of metal-on-metal bearings.

A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years: a ten-year follow-up

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ten-year clinical and functional outcome of hip resurfacing and to compare it with that of cementless hip arthroplasty in patients under the age of 55 years. Between 1999 and 2002, 80 patients were enrolled into the study: 24 were randomised (11 to hip resurfacing, 13 to total hip arthroplasty), 18 refused hip resurfacing and chose cementless total hip arthroplasty with a 32 mm bearing, and 38 insisted on resurfacing. The mean follow-up for all patients was 12.1 years (10 to 14). Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically at one year, five years and ten years. Outcome measures included EuroQol EQ5D, Oxford, Harris hip, University of California Los Angeles and University College Hospital functional scores. No differences were seen between the two groups in the Oxford or Harris hip scores or in the quality of life scores. Despite a similar aspiration to activity pre-operatively, a higher proportion of patients with a hip resurfacing were running and involved in sport and heavy manual labour after ten years. We found significantly higher function scores in patients who had undergone hip resurfacing than in those with a cementless hip arthroplasty at ten years. This suggests a functional advantage for hip resurfacing. There were no other attendant problems.

Metal ion levels and functional results following resurfacing hip arthroplasty versus conventional small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty; a 3 to 5year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

We present an update of a randomized controlled trial on 71 patients (<65 years) who received either a resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) (n=38) or cementless 28-mm metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n=33). Metal ion levels and functional outcome scores were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 58 months (SD 8.1). No clear shifts in relatively good outcome was encountered between RHA and THA. Metal ion levels appear to equalize between groups after 3 years. Median cobalt and chromium remained below 1.3 μg/L throughout follow-up in both groups. Six revisions were performed, of which three for pseudotumor formation (one THA, two RHA). In conclusion there were no clinical differences between the two groups and metal ion levels were lower than other series remained low, however, pseudotumor formation was not eliminated.

Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years

We report a 12- to 15-year implant survival assessment of a prospective single-surgeon series of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHRs). The earliest 1000 consecutive BHRs including 288 women (335 hips) and 598 men (665 hips) of all ages and diagnoses with no exclusions were prospectively followed-up with postal questionnaires, of whom the first 402 BHRs (350 patients) also had clinical and radiological review.

Mean follow-up was 13.7 years (12.3 to 15.3). In total, 59 patients (68 hips) died 0.7 to 12.6 years following surgery from unrelated causes. There were 38 revisions, 0.1 to 13.9 years (median 8.7) following operation, including 17 femoral failures (1.7%) and seven each of infections, soft-tissue reactions and other causes. With revision for any reason as the end-point Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed 97.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.9 to 97.9) and 95.8% (95% CI 95.1 to 96.5) survival at ten and 15 years, respectively. Radiological assessment showed 11 (3.5%) femoral and 13 (4.1%) acetabular radiolucencies which were not deemed failures and one radiological femoral failure (0.3%).

Our study shows that the performance of the BHR continues to be good at 12- to 15-year follow-up. Men have better implant survival (98.0%; 95% CI 97.4 to 98.6) at 15 years than women (91.5%; 95% CI 89.8 to 93.2), and women < 60 years (90.5%; 95% CI 88.3 to 92.7) fare worse than others. Hip dysplasia and osteonecrosis are risk factors for failure. Patients under 50 years with osteoarthritis fare best (99.4%; 95% CI 98.8 to 100 survival at 15 years), with no failures in men in this group.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1298–1306.

Surveillance of Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Prostheses: A Prospective Cohort Study to Investigate the Relationship Between Blood Metal Ion Levels and Implant Failure

BACKGROUND

We designed a prospective, single-center study to assess whether blood metal ion levels could predict implant failure in patients managed with unilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Five hundred and ninety-seven patients who had received unilateral Articular Surface Replacement prostheses at least twelve months earlier were recruited. Blood metal ion levels were compared between the group of patients with failed implants and the group with non-failed implants. Implant failure was defined as prostheses associated with revision, an intention to revise, or poor patient-reported hip function (Oxford Hip Score, <31 of 48). Specificity, sensitivity, area under the curve, positive and negative predictive values, and odds ratios were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify other risk factors for implant failure.

RESULTS

Patients with failed arthroplasty had significantly higher blood cobalt and chromium ion levels than did patients with non-failed arthroplasty (p < 0.01). Blood cobalt ion levels were disproportionately raised in patients with failed total hip arthroplasty (8.2 μg/L) compared with patients with failed hip resurfacing (2.5 μg/L) (p = 0.018). Blood chromium ion levels were not significantly different in patients with failed total hip arthroplasty and failed hip resurfacing (p = 0.058). The maximum value of either metal ion had good discriminant ability to predict implant failure (area under the curve, 0.76). A 7-μg/L cutoff had a positive predictive value of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.82) and a negative predictive value of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.86). In patients managed with total hip arthroplasty, for each increase of 1 μg/L there was a 23% (p < 0.001) increase in the odds of them being in the failed group. For patients managed with hip resurfacing, the increase in odds was 5% (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Raised levels of blood metal ions were associated with failed metal-on-metal hip resurfacings and total hip arthroplasties. A threshold level of 7 μg/L had inadequate sensitivity to be used in isolation as a screening test for implant failure, but it provided nearly optimal misclassification rates. No level had a perfect positive predictive value, and so we discourage surgeons from performing revision surgery based on blood metal ion levels alone. Levels of cobalt ions were raised out of proportion to levels of chromium ions in failed total hip arthroplasty and may reflect a different mechanism for metal ion generation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review comparing standardized outcomes

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).

RESULTS

The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with 28-mm diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a randomised study with six to nine years' follow-up

A total of 219 hips in 192 patients aged between 18 and 65 years were randomised to 28-mm metal-on-metal uncemented total hip replacements (THRs, 107 hips) or hybrid hip resurfacing (HR, 112 hips). At a mean follow-up of eight years (6.6 to 9.3) there was no significant difference between the THR and HR groups regarding rate of revision (4.0% (4 of 99) vs 5.8% (6 of 104), p = 0.569) or re-operation rates without revision (5.1% (5 of 99) vs 2.9% (3 of 104), p = 0.428). In the THR group one recurrent dislocation, two late deep infections and one peri-prosthetic fracture required revision, whereas in the HR group five patients underwent revision for femoral head loosening and one for adverse reaction to metal debris. The mean University of California, Los Angeles activity scores were significantly higher in HR (7.5 (sd 1.7) vs 6.9 (sd 1.7), p = 0.035), but similar mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were obtained (5.8 (sd 9.5) in HR vs 5.1 (sd 8.9) in THR, p = 0.615) at the last follow-up. Osteolysis was found in 30 of 81 THR patients (37.4%), mostly in the proximal femur, compared with two of 83 HR patients (2.4%) (p < 0.001). At five years the mean metal ion levels were < 2.5 μg/l for cobalt and chromium in both groups; only titanium was significantly higher in the HR group (p = 0.001). Although revision rates and functional scores were similar in both groups at mid-term, long-term survival analysis is necessary to determine whether one procedure is more advantageous than the other.

Durom hip resurfacing system: retrospective study of 644 cases with an average follow-up of 34 months

INTRODUCTION

The performance of second-generation metal-on-metal bearings has led to the reintroduction of hip resurfacing. The goal of this multicentre study was to evaluate the short-term radiological and clinical outcomes with the Durom hip resurfacing system.

HYPOTHESIS

The Durom hip-resurfacing system will have similar results to other hip resurfacing systems and traditional hip arthroplasty implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the four participating centers, 580 patients (406 men, 174 women) and 644 hips were included. The average patient age was 48 years (range 16-77). A posterolateral surgical approach was used in 357 cases; a Hardinge-type approach was used in 182 cases and a Rottinger-type approach in 105.

RESULTS

After an average follow-up of 34 months, 31 hips (4.8%) had been revised. The reasons for revision were the following: 10 (1.6%) neck fracture (seven with Rottinger operative approach, one with Hardinge approach and one with posterolateral approach); 12 (1.9%) femoral loosening (four with lateral approach and eight with posterolateral approach); four (0.6%) acetabular cup migration; three (0.5%) unexplained pain; one (0.2%) adverse reaction to metal debris; one (0.2%) infection. Four hips (0.6%) dislocated but without recurrence - all were operated using the Hardinge approach. The 613 hips that were not operated on again had satisfactory clinical results; the Merle d'Aubigné score was 17.2 (range 12-18) and the WOMAC score was 91 (range 20-100). The five-year survival rate was 91% (95% CI: 87-94%). Based on radiographs, the average cup inclination was 44.4° (range 30 to 70°). The femoral offset was reduced by an average of 2.4mm (-31 to 23 mm) and the leg length had increased by an average of 0.8mm (-15 to 19 mm) relative to the other side, which was prosthesis-free. None of the non-revised implants showed any signs of loosening.

DISCUSSION

This multicentre evaluation revealed that the Durom revision rate was slightly higher than the rate with other hip resurfacing systems and traditional total hip arthroplasty. Although the Durom system displayed excellent tribological performance, the differences relative to other implants may be attributed to the challenges associated with impaction, related to the geometry and design of the cup, and to precarious primary fixation. The choice of surgical exposure and implantation technique was an important factor in the survival of the implant.

LEVEL OF PROOF

Level IV - Retrospective study.

Survivorship, patient reported outcome and satisfaction following resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty

Resurfacing (RA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are options in the treatment of debilitating hip pathology. 381 patients that had undergone arthroplasty with a BHR RA, ASR RA, metal-on-metal (MoM) THA or ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) THA were reviewed for satisfaction, function, health and survivorship at a median follow up of 50 months. Significantly lower survivorship for revision and reoperation was observed in the ASR group. The BHR and CoC demonstrated better outcome scores than the ASR (OHS and SAPS) and the BHR better scores than the MoM (OHS and SF12 PCS). In the short to medium term, survivorship and outcomes for the best performing RA (BHR) and THA (CoC) were comparable. There was a non-significant trend towards poorer outcome scores in the MoM THA group.

Patients report improvement in quality of life and satisfaction after hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

A number of reconstructive procedures are available for the management of hip osteoarthritis. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is now an accepted procedure, with implant survivorship comparable to THA at up to 10 years' followup in certain series. Most reports focus on implant survivorship, surgeon-derived results, or complications. Fewer data pertain to patient-reported results, including validated measures of quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction and baseline measures from which to determine magnitude of improvement. Validated patient-reported results are essential to guide patients and surgeons in the current era of informed and shared decision making.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined whether patients reported improvement in disease-specific, joint-specific, and generic QoL after hip resurfacing arthroplasty; whether patients were satisfied with the results of the procedure; and latest activity level and return to sport.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 127 patients (100 men, 27 women) who underwent 143 hip resurfacing procedures between 2002 and 2006. Mean patient age was 52 years. Patients completed the WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score, and SF-12 at baseline and again at minimum 2-year followup (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2-6 years). At latest followup, patients completed a validated satisfaction questionnaire and UCLA activity score.

RESULTS

All QoL scores improved (normalized to a 0-100 scale, where 100 = best health state). WOMAC improved from 46 to 95, Oxford Hip Score from 42 to 95, SF-12 (physical) from 34 to 54, and SF-12 (mental) from 46 to 56. Patient satisfaction score was 96. UCLA activity score was 8.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients reported improvement in QoL, were very satisfied with their outcome, and returned to a high level of activity after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Do revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties lead to outcomes comparable to those of primary and revised total hip arthroplasties?

BACKGROUND

A theoretical clinical advantage of hip resurfacing (HR) is the preservation of femoral bone. HR femoral component revision reportedly yields postoperative function comparable to that of primary THA. However, few studies have looked at the outcome of both HR femoral and acetabular side revisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined whether (1) patients undergoing HR revision to THA have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing primary THA or revision of primary THA and (2) patients undergoing HR revision of both components have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral component only.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed and compared 22 patients undergoing revision HR to a THA to a matched (age, sex, BMI) group of 23 patients undergoing primary THA and 12 patients undergoing primary THA revision. Patients completed the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires before surgery and at latest followup (range, 24-84 months for HR revision, 28-48 months for primary THA, and 24-48 months for revision THA). Blood loss, days in hospital, complications, and outcome scores were compared among groups.

RESULTS

We observed no differences in SF-12 scores but observed lower WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores in the HR revision group than in the primary THA group. Patients undergoing HR revision of both components had comparable SF-12 and WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores but overall lower WOMAC pain scores compared to patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral side only. The HR revision group had greater intraoperative blood loss compared to the primary THA group but not the revision THA group.

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative measures and outcome scores of HR revision are comparable to those of revision THA but not primary THA. Longer followup is required to determine whether these differences persist. Patients undergoing HR revision of one or both components can expect comparable stiffness and function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.

Metal-on-Metal Bearing: Is This the End of the Line? We Do Not Think So

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have recommended the discontinuation of metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of adverse effects reported with large-diameter MoM THA. This is despite favorable long-term results observed with 28 and 32 mm MoM bearings.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this study was to assess the value of calls for an end to MoM bearings as THA components. Specifically, we wish to address the risks associated with MoM bearings including adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk.

METHODS

The study evaluates the arguments in the literature reporting on MoM (adverse soft tissue reactions, metal ion release, and carcinogenic risk) and the experience of the current authors who re-introduced these bearings in 1995. They are balanced by a benefit-risk review of the literature and the authors' experience with MoM use.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions to metallic debris as well as metal ion release are predictable and can be prevented by adequate design (arc of coverage, clearance), metallurgy (forged instead of cast alloy, high-carbide content), and appropriate component orientation. There is no scientific evidence that carcinogenicity is increased in subjects with MoM hip prostheses. MoM articulations appear to be attractive allowing safe hip resurfacing, decreasing the risk of THA revision in active patients, and providing secure THA fixation with cement in cages in severely deformed hips. MoM bearings in women of child-bearing age are controversial, but long-term data on metallic devices in adolescents undergoing spinal surgery seem reassuring.

DISCUSSION

Adequate selection of MoM articulations ensures their safe use. These articulations are sensitive to orientation. Fifteen years of safe experience with 28- and 32-mm bearings of forged alloy and high-carbide content is the main reason for retaining them in primary and revision THA.

Adoption of hip resurfacing arthroplasty at hospital for special surgery: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to traditional total hip replacement (THR) that allows for the preservation of femoral bone. It is a more technically difficult procedure that has led some researchers to report an unsatisfactory learning curve (Berend et al., J Bone Joint Surg Am Suppl 2:89-92, 2011; Mont et al., Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:63-70, 2007).

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the adoption of HRA at our institution, examining the clinical results, revision rate, and modes of failure. Additionally, a comparison of three different implant systems was performed.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a consecutive series of HRA performed at our institution between the years 2004 and 2009 was carried out. A total of 820 HRA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included in the study. The majority of included patients were males (70%), with osteoarthritis (92%). The average age was 49.8 years, and the mean BMI was 27.5 kg/m(2).

RESULTS

The average Harris hip score improved from 61 to 96.5 postoperatively. Thirteen revisions (1.6%) were performed for femoral neck fracture, femoral head osteonecrosis, acetabular loosening, metal reactivity/metallosis, and metal allergy. The overall Kaplan-Meier survival curve with revision surgery as an endpoint showed 98.5% survival at 5 years. There were no observable differences in clinical scores or revision rates between the different implant systems.

CONCLUSIONS

HRA can be successfully adopted with a low complication rate, given careful patient selection, specialized surgical training, and use of good implant design.

Modern metal-on-metal hip implants

This Technology Overview was prepared using systematic review methodology and summarizes the findings of studies published as of July 15, 2011, on modern metal-on-metal hip implants. Analyses conducted on outcomes by two joint registries indicate that patients who receive metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing are at greater risk for revision than are patients who receive THA using a different bearing surface combination. Data from these registries also indicate that larger femoral head components have higher revision rates and risk of revision and that older age is associated with increased revision risks of large-head metal-on-metal THA. Several studies noted a correlation between suboptimal hip implant positioning and higher wear rates, local metal debris release, and consequent local tissue reactions to metal debris. In addition, several studies reported elevated serum metal ion concentrations in patients with metal-on-metal hip articulations, although the clinical significance of these elevated ion concentrations remains unknown.

Joint perception after hip or knee replacement surgery

INTRODUCTION

Knee and hip arthroplasties are recognized as being effective. However, subjects with a prosthetic joint rarely report returned sensation comparable to their native joint.

HYPOTHESIS

Joint perception by patients following hip joint replacement is better than following knee replacement and in both cases this perception is directly related to the clinical results measured with currently validated scores.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patient joint perception in prosthetic reconstruction was evaluated in 347 patients, 46 who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), 119 tricompartmental knee arthroplasty (TKA), 93 hip resurfacing (HR), and 89 total hip arthroplasty (THA). The subjects' joint perception, their satisfaction, and the WOMAC clinical score were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Joint perception was significantly worse for knee arthroplasties (TKA and UKA) compared to hip arthroplasties (THA or HR) (P<0.001). The WOMAC score was also significantly less favorable for knee arthroplasties than for hip arthroplasties (P<0.0001). However, there was no significant difference for the clinical scores between TKA and UKA as well as between HR and THA. Joint perception was strongly correlated with the WOMAC score for all groups (R(2)=0.951).

DISCUSSION

No difference was found after more conservative surgeries such as HR or UKA compared to traditional arthroplasty procedures (THA or TKA). Demonstrating inferior results in comparison to the hip, knee arthroplasties deserve particular attention and can still be improved. The assessment of joint perception used in this study can be considered a valuable clinical tool that is strongly correlated to validated, but more complex to apply, clinical scores.

Surface replacement of the hip can result in decreased acetabular bone stock

BACKGROUND

The recent interest in hip resurfacing arthroplasty is motivated by its potential advantages over THA. One advantage of hip resurfacing arthroplasty is that it conserves bone on the femoral side; however, it is unclear whether it does so on the acetabular side.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined whether the amount of acetabular reaming and acetabular bone removal required for hip resurfacing arthroplasty is equal to, less than, or greater than that for THA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the femoral neck size of 180 hips at the time of primary THA in an identical manner to when carrying out a hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Based on the femoral neck measurement, we determined the minimum cup size that would be used and reamer size required if the hip was undergoing a resurfacing. We compared this to the reamer size actually required to prepare the acetabulum for the THA cup. We calculated the difference between the predicted reaming size for resurfacing and the actual reaming size to determine the effect of resurfacing on acetabular bone stock.

RESULTS

Overall, 71%, 57%, and 41% of THAs would have had extra acetabular bone removed to implant a hip resurfacing arthroplasty cup with a line-to-line (0-mm), 1-mm, or 2-mm press fit, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to THA, hip resurfacing arthroplasty commonly results in additional acetabular bone resection.

Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was introduced as a bone-preserving method of joint reconstruction for young and active patients; however, the large diameter of the bearing surfaces is of concern for potentially increased metal ion release.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

71 patients (< 65 years old) were randomly assigned to receive either a resurfacing (R) hip arthroplasty (n = 38) or a conventional metal-on-metal (C) hip arthroplasty (n = 33). Functional outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Cobalt and chromium blood levels were analyzed preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

All functional outcome scores improved for both groups. At 12 and 24 months, the median UCLA activity score was 8 in the R patients and 7 in the C patients (p < 0.05). At 24 months, OHS was median 16 in C patients and 13 in R patients (p < 0.05). However, in spite of randomization, UCLA scores also appeared to be higher in R patients at baseline. Satisfaction was similar in both groups at 24 months. Cobalt concentrations were statistically significantly higher for R patients only at 3 and 6 months. Chromium levels remained significantly higher for R patients until 24 months. No pseudotumors were encountered in either group. One R patient was revised for early aseptic loosening and in 2 C patients a cup insert was exchanged for recurrent dislocation.

INTERPRETATION

R patients scored higher on UCLA, OHS, and satisfaction at some time points; however, as for the UCLA, preoperative levels were already in favor of R. The differences, although statistically significant, were of minor clinical importance. Chromium blood levels were statistically significantly higher for R patients at all follow-up measurements, whereas for cobalt this was only observed up to 6 months. The true value of resurfacing hip arthroplasty over conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty will be determined by longer follow-up and a possible shift of balance between their respective (dis)advantages.

State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?

Total hip arthroplasty has shown excellent results in decreasing pain and improving function in patients with degenerative disease of the hip. Improvements in prosthetic materials, designs and implant fixation have now resulted in wear of the bearing surface being the limitation of this technology, and a number of hard-on-hard couples have been introduced to address this concern. The purpose of this article is to review the origins, development, survival rates and potential advantages and disadvantages of the following hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty: metal-on-metal standard total hip arthroplasty; metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty, ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty; and ceramic-on-metal bearings. Improvements in the manufacturing of metal-on-metal bearings over the past 50 years have resulted in implants that provide low wear rates and allow for the use of large femoral heads. However, concerns remain regarding elevated serum metal ion levels, potential teratogenic effects and potentially devastating adverse local tissue reactions, whose incidence and pathogenesis remains unclear. Modern total hip resurfacing has shown excellent outcomes over 10 years in the hands of experienced surgeons. Current ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have demonstrated excellent survival with exceptionally low wear rates and virtually no local adverse effects. Concerns remain for insertional chipping, in vivo fracture and the variable incidence of squeaking. Contemporary ceramic-on-metal interfaces are in the early stages of clinical use, with little data reported to date. Hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty have improved dramatically over the past 50 years. As bearing designs continue to improve with new and modified materials and improved manufacturing techniques, it is likely that the use of hard-on-hard bearings will continue to increase, especially in young and active patients.

Survival of hard-on-hard bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Improvements in prosthetic materials, designs, and implant fixation for THA have led to bearing surface wear being the limitation of this technology. Hard-on-hard bearings promise decreased wear rates and increased survival. However, there may be different survival rates based on bearing materials, manufacturing technologies, and femoral component designs. Additionally, survival rate variability may be based on study design.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined survival rates and study levels of evidence and quality for the following bearings: stemmed metal-on-metal THA, metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, ceramic-on-ceramic THA, and ceramic-on-metal THA.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature addressing THA hard-on-hard bearings. Quality for Level I and II studies was assessed.

RESULTS

The four Level I or II second-generation stemmed metal-on-metal THA studies reported between 96% and 100% mean survival at 38 to 60 months. The two Level I hip resurfacing studies reported 94% and 98% mean survival at 56 and 33 months. The four Level I studies of ceramic-on-ceramic THA reported survival from 100% at mean 51 months to 96% at 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

While hard-on-hard bearing survival rates have generally been variable with earlier designs, contemporary implants have demonstrated survival of 95% or greater at followup of between 3 and 10 years. Some variability in survival may be due to differences in surgical technique, component positioning, and implant designs. As bearing designs continue to improve with modified materials and manufacturing techniques, use will increase, especially in young and active patients, though concerns remain about the increased reports of adverse events after metal-on-metal bearings.

[Evidence-based update in hip arthroplasty]

The present manuscript provides an overview of current evidence-based data and new clinically relevant developments in the field of hip arthroplasty. A multitude of current clinical trials have focussed on tribology with special interest on metal-on-metal implants. Large trials from implant registries have defined specific risk factors for early implant failure and pseudotumors in surface replacement. Furthermore, new ceramic liners and femoral head implants have been investigated in randomized trials. Apart from other very interesting studies, the results of large meta-analyses are now available for laboratory values in periprosthetic infection, antibiotic prophylaxis, regional anesthesia, prevention of thromboembolism, implant fixation, navigation and clinical pathways to prevent complications.

Survival of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature

We systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed literature to relate the survival of hybrid metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty devices to a National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) benchmark for choosing a primary total hip replacement, which is a survival rate of 90% at a follow-up of ten years. A total of 29 articles (10 621 resurfaced hips) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 0.6 to 10.5 years and the survival of the implant ranged from 84% to 100%. Of the 10 621 hips, 370 were revised (3.5%), with aseptic loosening as the most frequent mode of failure. None of the hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants used to date met the full ten-year NICE benchmark of survival. A total of 13 studies showed satisfactory survival compared with the three-year NICE benchmark.

The effect of patient selection and surgical technique on the results of Conserve® Plus hip resurfacing--3.5- to 14-year follow-up

The results of metal-on-metal hip Conserve® Plus resurfacings with up to 14 years of follow-up with and without risk factors of small component size and/or large femoral defects were compared as performed with either first- or second-generation surgical techniques. There was a 99.7% survivorship at ten years for ideal hips (large components and small defects) and a 95.3% survivorship for hips with risk factors optimized technique has measurably improved durability in patients with risk factors at the 8-year mark. The lessons learned can help offset the observed learning curve of resurfacing.

Comparison of functional results of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: a review of the literature

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) results in good outcomes in function and risk for revision in older patients. However, in young, active patients, it results in an increased rate of revision and poorer outcomes. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is described as an appropriate treatment of hip osteoarthritis in young, active patients. The selection of an appropriate prosthesis is critical for this patient demographic. This review compares the functional results of THA and HRA and focuses on range of motion, activity level, groin pain, patient satisfaction, restoration of normal hip anatomy, and gait.