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

Total hip arthroplasty with monobloc press-fit acetabular components and large-diameter bearings for atypical acetabula is safe: a consecutive case series of 125 hips with mean follow-up of 9 years

BACKGROUND

Large-diameter head (LDH) total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a monobloc acetabular component improves hip stability. However, obtaining initial press-fit stability is quite challenging in atypical acetabula. The purpose of this study was to assess primary and secondary fixation of monobloc cups in atypical acetabula.

METHODS

In this consecutive case series, the local arthroplasty database was used to retrospectively identify patients with secondary osteoarthritis who underwent primary hip replacement with press-fit only LDH monobloc acetabular components between 2005 and 2018 and who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Radiographic evaluation was performed at last follow-up, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and the Patient's Joint Perception (PJP) question.

RESULTS

One hundred and six LDH THAs and 19 hip resurfacings were included in the study. Preoperative diagnoses included hip dysplasia (36.8%), Legg-Calve-Perthes disease (32.0%), osteoarthritis with acetabular deficiency (17.6%), periacetabular osteotomy (8.0%), arthrodesis (4.0%), and osteopetrosis (1.6%). After a mean follow-up of 9.2 years, no aseptic loosening of the acetabular component was recorded nor observed on radiologic review. There were 13 (10.4%) revisions unrelated to the acetabular component fixation. The mean WOMAC and FJS scores were 9.2 and 80.9, respectively. In response to the PJP question, 49.4% of the patients perceived their hip as natural, 19.1% as an artificial joint with no restriction, 31.5% as an artificial joint with restriction, and none as a non-functional joint.

CONCLUSION

Primary press-fit fixation of monobloc acetabular components with LDH implanted in atypical acetabula led to secondary fixation in all cases with low revision and complication rates and great functional outcomes. With careful surgical technique and experience, systematic use of supplemental screw fixation is not essential in THA with atypical acetabula.

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.

Complications and mid to long term outcomes for hip resurfacing versus total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The long-term results of total hip replacement (THR) are excellent; however, it has higher failure rates in young and active patients. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative in such patients and gaining popularity. This review was done to compare complications and outcomes between HRA and THA by assessing the latest level 1 studies comparing the two from the past 10 years.

METHOD

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using three databases (PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS) to compare the complications between THR and HRA in medium to long term follow up. The primary outcome of interest included the complication and revision rate between the two techniques. Functional outcomes and ionic levels at follow up were also compared as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias assessment was done using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULT

The present review included 6 level 1 studies. These included 308 THR and 304 HRA. On meta-analysis, overall complications rates were significantly lower in HRA compared to the THA group with an Odds ratio (OR) of 2.17 (95% CI 1.21, 3.88; p = 0.009). No difference was seen between the two groups in terms of revision rate (OR 1.06 95% CI 0.57, 1.99; p = 0.85). Functional outcomes in both the groups were satisfactory but the Harris Hip Score was found to be significantly better in the resurfacing group (MD 2.99 95% CI - 4.01, - 1.96, p < 0.00001). There were increased cobalt and chromium ions in the resurfacing group but no detrimental effect was seen in terms of reported poisoning.

CONCLUSION

Despite similar function and revision rates, HRA was seen to have lesser associated complications and ionic levels may not be a detrimental issue. Hip resurfacing provides relative ease during revisions, especially in younger patients and it may be an alternative to THR in the younger population.