The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty

Metallosis in Total Hip Arthroplasty

» Metallosis is a rare but significant complication that can occur after total hip arthroplasty (THA) for a variety of reasons but most commonly in patients with metal-on-metal implants.» It is characterized by the visible staining, necrosis, and fibrosis of the periprosthetic soft tissues, along with the variable presence of aseptic cysts and solid soft tissue masses called pseudotumors secondary to the corrosion and deposition of metal debris.» Metallosis can present with a spectrum of complications ranging from pain and inflammation to more severe symptoms such as osteolysis, soft tissue damage, and pseudotumor formation.» Workup of metallosis includes a clinical evaluation of the patient's symptoms, imaging studies, serum metal-ion levels, and intraoperative visualization of the staining of tissues. Inflammatory markers such as erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein along with intraoperative frozen slice analysis may be useful in certain cases to rule out concurrent periprosthetic joint infection.» Management depends on the severity and extent of the condition; however, revision THA is often required to prevent rapid progression of bone loss and tissue necrosis.

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.

Midterm outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with a modular Birmingham head

INTRODUCTION

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants may be combined with a conventional femoral stem to create a modular metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (BHR MoM THA). There is little outcome data regarding this construct. This study examines midterm outcomes of BHR MoM THA compared to oxidised zirconium total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

A retrospective institutional review identified all patients receiving BHR MoM THA between April 2005 and February 2011 and a matched control cohort of zirconium THA patients. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and SF-12 Health status scores were obtained. Revisions and complications were collected from clinical records. Radiographs were assessed for evidence of component malposition, loosening, osteolysis, or heterotopic ossification.

RESULTS

63 modular BHR MoM THA were identified in 61 patients (36 with BHR cups, 27 with R3 cups) and 63 zirconium THA in 58 matched controls. Mean follow-up was 58 months. 14 BHR MoM THA hips (22.2%) were revised (4 infections, 1 dislocation, 9 soft tissue reactions) compared to 3 (4.8%) zirconium THA (all infections). At latest follow-up, 18.4% of surviving BHR MoM THA hips were painful compared to 0.5% of zirconium THA controls (p < 0.001). WOMAC, HHS, and SF-12 did not differ significantly between surviving members of the 2 groups.

DISCUSSION

BHR MoM THA demonstrated a high revision rate, largely for adverse local soft tissue reaction and pain. Among those not revised, many reported some residual pain despite similar quality of life measures to those who received zirconium THA.

Acetabular Fracture Around a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Prosthesis: A Case Report

CASE

A traumatic displaced transverse periprosthetic acetabular fracture around a well-functioning Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis was treated with open reduction and internal fixation. The acetabular component was found to be well-fixed intraoperatively and did not require revision. The patient recovered with excellent clinical and radiographic results at the 1-year follow-up with a Harris Hip Score of 94.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal fixation, rather than revision arthroplasty, offers acceptable outcomes in patients with periprosthetic acetabular fractures about well-fixed hip resurfacing prostheses. Radiographic and intraoperative assessment of stability is critical in guiding treatment.

Femoral Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An 11-Year Retrospective Comparison of 4013 Cases

BACKGROUND

The optimal femoral fixation method remains unclear. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (739 hips) with cemented femoral components; group 2 (3274 hips) with uncemented femoral components.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, and radiographic measurements. Groups were consecutive, so cemented cases had longer follow-up. However, all patients from both groups were at least 2 years out from surgery. Two-year clinical and radiographic data were compared. Longer-term comparison data as well as Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves specifically focusing on femoral failure modes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier 10-year implant survivorship using nontraumatic femoral failure as an end point was 98.9% for the cemented and 100% for the uncemented femoral component. The uncemented, group 2 cases showed a significantly lower raw failure rate (1.1% vs 4.6%), 2-year failure rate (0.8% vs 2.8%), 2-year femoral failure rate (0.4% vs 0.9%), and a lower combined rate of femoral complications and failures (0.6% vs 1.8%). In cases that did not fail, patient mean clinical scores, pain scores, and combined range of motion were all significantly better for group 2.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that in the fully porous-coated ReCap device, uncemented femoral fixation is superior to cemented fixation at 11 years follow-up (0.0% vs 1.1% late femoral loosening) in this single-surgeon cohort. Early femoral fractures also reduced from 0.8% to 0.3%, but this may be partially or completely due to a new bone density management program. This study demonstrates better femoral implant survivorship for the uncemented device compared to the cemented femoral resurfacing component for this implant design.

Trochanteric Femoral Fracture Around a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Prosthesis: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

CASE

A traumatic nondisplaced periprosthetic trochanteric fracture around a well-fixed and functioning Birmingham Hip Resurfacing prosthesis was managed with a reconstruction intramedullary nail. The surgical procedure provided excellent pain relief, and the patient was able to mobilize with crutches the day after surgery. Follow-up at 1 year confirmed excellent clinical and radiographic results.

CONCLUSION

In a patient with a previously well-functioning hip resurfacing prosthesis, internal fixation rather than revision hip arthroplasty can offer good clinical and radiographic outcomes. The use of a reconstruction intramedullary nail may be a good option for fixing a periprosthetic trochanteric fracture around a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant.

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.

Clinical and Functional Outcomes of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System

This study reported the outcomes of patients treated with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee) to identify the prevalence of complications and failures. A retrospective review of 202 patients (206 hips) was performed. Outcomes were assessed clinically with Harris Hip Score at 6 and 12 months and then yearly. Subanalysis was performed, with the hips divided according to patient sex and size of the femoral component. Mean patient age was 51±8 years, and mean follow-up was 4±1.6 years. Of the patients, 163 were men (83%) and 35 were women (17%). Postoperative improvement was significant, with preoperative Harris Hip Score of 62.9±10.6 and postoperative Harris Hip Score of 98.6±6.7 (P<.001). There were 9 patients (4%) who had complications. A total of 5 hips (2.4%) underwent revision. At 3 years, mean survival was better for men than for women (99% vs 92%, respectively). Survival was lowest in patients with femoral component diameter of less than 46 mm. According to the authors' results, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System resulted in good clinical outcomes at 4 years. Survival and outcomes in women, particularly those with modest bone size, are inferior.

Balancing innovation and medical device regulation: the case of modern metal-on-metal hip replacements

Due to problems with wear particle generation and subsequent loosening using conventional metal-on-polyethylene total hip replacements, there has been a shift toward alternative bearing systems, including metal-on-metal (MoM), for younger, more active patients with degenerative joint disease. Based on positive results from early short-term clinical studies, MoM hip replacements were readily adopted by orthopedic surgeons with thousands being implanted worldwide over the past decade. Unacceptably high revision rates reported by two national joint registries called into question the rigorousness of the regulatory approval process for these implants, particularly with respect to premarket data requirements to prove safety, effectiveness, and the appropriateness of the regulatory pathway chosen. The purpose of this review was to investigate the balance between facilitating the introduction of new medical technologies and the need to ensure safety and effectiveness through comprehensive regulatory assessment. The case of MoM hip replacement devices was used to frame the investigation and subsequent discussions. The regulatory approval processes and post-market surveillance requirements associated with three common MoM hip replacements (two resurfacings: the Birmingham and articular surface replacement and the articular surface replacement XL total hip replacement) were investigated. With respect to modern MoM hip replacement devices, the balance between facilitating the introduction of these new medical technologies and the need to ensure safety and effectiveness through comprehensive regulatory assessment was not achieved. The lessons learned from these experiences have application beyond joint replacements to the introduction of new medical technologies in general, particularly for those who have a significant potential for harm. In this regard, a series of recommendations have been developed to contribute to the evolution of the medical device regulatory process.

The Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty--minimum two year clinical and radiological follow-up: an independent single surgeon series

We report the results of the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection Arthroplasty (BMHR) for patients with poor femoral head bone quality where standard hip resurfacing is contraindicated. This is a clinical and radiological follow-up of the first 35 consecutive procedures (34 patients, 16 male, 18 female) performed by an independent surgeon. The mean follow-up was 2.8 years (2.1 to 4.1) and no patients were lost to follow-up. The mean age at the time of surgery was 50.4 years (23.8 to 69.4). There were no failures. The mean HHS improved from 46.6 (25 to 70) pre-operatively to 96.1 (72 to 100) post-operatively. The mean OHS was 36.4 (19 to 53) pre-operatively and 14.2 (12 to 34) post-operatively. The mean WOMAC score was 45.6 (7 to 92) pre-operatively and 4.3 (0 to 28) post-operatively. The mean UCLA activity score was 4.5 (1 to 9) pre-operatively and 7.6 (5 to 10) post-operatively. Radiographic analysis did not show any adverse features such as stress shielding, loosening or femoral neck narrowing. The BMHR provides an excellent alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty in patients with poor femoral head bone quality who are not suitable for standard resurfacing.

The Tribology of Explanted Hip Resurfacings Following Early Fracture of the Femur

A recognized issue related to metal-on-metal hip resurfacings is early fracture of the femur. Most theories regarding the cause of fracture relate to clinical factors but an engineering analysis of failed hip resurfacings has not previously been reported. The objective of this work was to determine the wear volumes and surface roughness values of a cohort of retrieved hip resurfacings which were removed due to early femoral fracture, infection and avascular necrosis (AVN). Nine resurfacing femoral heads were obtained following early fracture of the femur, a further five were retrieved due to infection and AVN. All fourteen were measured for volumetric wear using a co-ordinate measuring machine. Wear rates were then calculated and regions of the articulating surface were divided into "worn" and "unworn". Roughness values in these regions were measured using a non-contacting profilometer. The mean time to fracture was 3.7 months compared with 44.4 months for retrieval due to infection and AVN. Average wear rates in the early fracture heads were 64 times greater than those in the infection and AVN retrievals. Given the high wear rates of the early fracture components, such wear may be linked to an increased risk of femoral neck fracture.

High failure rate of the R3 metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

We report our failures with the use of the R3 metal-on-metal bearing. Forty six patients had an R3 acetabular system metal-on-metal THR in our centre between March 2007 and March 2009. All operations were performed using femoral components and appropriately matched femoral heads manufactured by Smith and Nephew. Twelve patients underwent revision surgery for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). The median acetabular inclination was 40 degrees (range 21.1-49.1) and the median acetabular anteversion was 7.5 degrees (range 3.3-10.4). The median serum Cobalt was 9.9 µg/L (range 3.1-45) and the median serum Chromium was 5.8 µg/L (range 1.8-19.3). The time to revision was 39.2 months (range 13-53). Our current failure rate is 24%.

Adverse reaction to metal debris after Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Concern has emerged about local soft-tissue reactions after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution. We assessed the prevalence and risk factors for adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) with this device.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2003 to 2011, BHR was the most commonly used HRA device at our institution, with 249 implantations. We included 32 patients (24 of them men) who were operated with a BHR HRA during the period April 2004 to March 2007 (42 hips; 31 in men). The mean age of the patients was 59 (26-77) years. These patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), serum metal ion measurements, the Oxford hip score questionnaire, and physical examination. The prevalence of ARMD was recorded, and risk factors for ARMD were assessed using logistic regression models. The mean follow-up time was 6.7 (2.4-8.8) years.

RESULTS

6 patients had a definite ARMD (involving 9 of the 42 hips). 8 other patients (8 hips) had a probable ARMD. Thus, there was definite or probable ARMD in 17 of the 42 hips. 4 of 42 hips were revised for ARMD. Gender, bilateral metal-on-metal hip replacement and head size were not factors associated with ARMD.

INTERPRETATION

We found that HRA with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing may be more dangerous than previously believed. We advise systematic follow-up of these patients using metal ion levels, MRI/ultrasound, and patient-reported outcome measures.

Clinical results of the conserve plus metal on metal hip resurfacing: an independent series

The purpose of the present study was to report the clinical and radiographic results of an independent series of the Conserve Plus hip resurfacing. Five hundred forty-eight consecutive hip resurfacings were performed using the Conserve Plus prosthesis in 458 patients (350 males) with a mean age of 48.3 years (range 19 to 66). No patients were lost to follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 6.6 years (3.9 to 11.9) thirty (5.4%) hips required conversion to a total hip arthroplasty (THA) (20 males, 10 females, mean age=48.3±7.3 years). Five-year survival with as revision endpoint was 94.5% (95% CI: 93.5% to 95.5%). This study confirms the good clinical results previously reported with the Conserve Plus hip resurfacing device.

Metal-on-metal hip surface replacement

Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (MoMHR) has enjoyed a resurgence in the last decade, but is now again in question as a routine option for osteoarthritis of the hip. Proponents of hip resurfacing suggest that its survival is superior to that of conventional hip replacement (THR), and that hip resurfacing is less invasive, is easier to revise than THR, and provides superior functional outcomes. Our argument serves to illustrate that none of these proposed advantages have been realised and new and unanticipated serious complications, such as pseudotumors, have been associated with the procedure. As such, we feel that the routine use of MoMHR is not justified.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):17–21.

A painful soft tissue mass secondary to impingement of a metal on polyethylene bearing total hip arthroplasty

A 60-year-old woman underwent a metal on polyethylene total hip replacement. The patient experienced pain and sustained multiple dislocations over the following 2 years and was referred for consideration of revision surgery. At the time of revision surgery it was found that there was a significant amount of polyethylene wear likely to have arisen as a result of the neutral cup placement and subsequent anterior impingement. A large cystic mass was excised and on histology was found to contain tissue with a lymphocytic infiltrate with a large amount of intracellular birefringent debris, consistent with polyethylene. The appearance of such masses is well reported as pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip replacements but as yet their aetiology is unknown. We believe that the formation of the mass in this case could represent a model by which these pseudotumours occur.

Survivorship of standard versus modified posterior surgical approaches in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

Objectives

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) is available as an alternative option for younger, more active patients. There are failure modes that are unique to MOMHR, which include loosening of the femoral head and fractures of the femoral neck. Previous studies have speculated that changes in the vascularity of the femoral head may contribute to these failure modes. This study compares the survivorship between the standard posterior approach (SPA) and modified posterior approach (MPA) in MOMHR.

Methods

A retrospective clinical outcomes study was performed examining 351 hips (279 male, 72 female) replaced with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR, Smith and Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee) in 313 patients with a pre-operative diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The mean follow-up period for the SPA group was 2.8 years (0.1 to 6.1) and for the MPA, 2.2 years (0.03 to 5.2); this difference in follow-up period was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Survival analysis was completed using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

At four years, the Kaplan–Meier survival curve for the SPA was 97.2% and 99.4% for the MPA; this was statistically significant (log-rank; p = 0.036). There were eight failures in the SPA and two in the MPA. There was a 3.5% incidence of femoral head collapse or loosening in the SPA and 0.4% in the MPA, which represented a significant difference (p = 0.041). There was a 1.7% incidence of fractures of the femoral neck in the SPA and none in the MPA (p = 0.108).

Conclusion

This study found a significant difference in survivorship at four years between the SPA and the MPA (p = 0.036). The clinical outcomes of this study suggest that preserving the vascularity of the femoral neck by using the MPA results in fewer vascular-related failures in MOMHRs.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:150–4

Our midterm results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing with and without navigation

We reviewed 148 consecutive hip resurfacings in order to assess the clinical outcomes of the BHR at midterm follow-up and to compare the accuracy of the navigation in the positioning of femoral component. We retrospectively analyzed 85 hips using the conventional jig to implant the femoral component and we prospectively followed 63 hips operated on by navigation. At a mean follow-up of 50.54 months, the Harris hip score improved significantly from 44.66 preoperatively to 98.45 postoperatively without any differences between the groups. Radiologically, we classic navigated group. Our clinical outcomes are excellent at midterm follow-up and the navigation definitely improves the implant position in both planes.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty at a non-specialist centre

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have reported the outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) with respect to implant characteristics from non-specialist centres. We report the survival, clinical and radiological outcomes of a single surgeon series of HRA with an average follow-up duration of five years.

METHODS

All consecutive HRAs performed by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2011 at a district general hospital were retrospectively examined clinically and radiologically.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients underwent 109 HRAs (58 male [53.2%] and 51 female patients [46.8%]) with a mean follow-up period of 62 months (range: 12-102 months). The median age was 57 years (range: 25-75 years). The mean acetabular and femoral head component sizes were 54 mm (range: 48-64 mm) and 48 mm (range: 42-58 mm) respectively with a mean acetabular inclination angle of 42.9° (range: 20-75°). The survival rate was 95% with five revisions due to aseptic loosening (n=3) and fracture (n=2): these were predominantly for female patients (n=4), with significantly smaller mean acetabular (51 mm, p=0.04) and femoral (44 mm, p=0.02) implant sizes. Furthermore, they had a higher mean acetabular inclination angle of 48.1° (p=0.74). The mean Oxford hip score was 43.8 (range: 25-48) and the mean University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score was 6.8 (range: 3-10). Radiological findings included heterotopic ossification in 13 (11.9%), radiolucent lines in 6 (5.5%), femoral neck thinning in 2 (1.8%) and femoral neck notching in 5 patients (4.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that HRA at a non-specialist centre has short to medium-term outcomes comparable with those at specialist centres. HRA therefore remains a viable option although vigilance is required in case selection and follow-up according to national guidance.

Hip resurfacing does not improve proprioception compared with THA

BACKGROUND

Proposed benefits of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty over total hip arthroplasty (THA) include better proprioception, but this has not been rigorously tested or validated.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Our purpose was to apply an advanced testing device that objectively quantifies dynamic postural stability to determine if total hip resurfacing is associated with improved proprioception compared with standard or large-head THA.

METHODS

Three groups of 25 patients (total hip resurfacing, THA femoral head > 32 mm, THA femoral head ≤ 32 mm) and a matched control group were recruited. All participants had UCLA scores ≥ 5 and Harris hip scores ≥ 90 at the time of testing. Testing was conducted using a commercially available device that uses a multidirectional, powered platform to measure deviations of the center of mass and consisted of trials with both double- and single-limb support.

RESULTS

Double-limb testing showed no differences between groups. In single-limb testing, the operative side performed better in patients who had undergone total hip resurfacing versus THA, but this difference disappeared when the operative side was normalized to the nonoperative side. When compared with control subjects who had not had arthroplasty, both operative and nonoperative sides showed significantly worse proprioception for all arthroplasty cohorts, suggesting that decreased proprioception is associated with arthritis of the hip in young adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Total hip resurfacing arthroplasty did not result in improved proprioception compared with THA. These results tend to refute the concept that improved proprioception is a rationale for selecting total hip resurfacing over THA in young patients.

Intertrochanteric Fracture after Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Managed with a Reconstruction Nail

Periprosthetic fractures after hip resurfacings are rare occurrences that can pose a challenge to orthopaedic surgeons. With hip resurfacings becoming more common, the prevalence of these fractures is likely to increase because these patients are usually younger and more active. We report a case of traumatic periprosthetic proximal femur fracture treated with a reconstruction intramedullary nail technique.

Early failure of the Durom prosthesis in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Chinese patients

Hip resurfacing (HR) is being used increasingly as an alterative to total hip arthroplasty in osteonecrosis (ON) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) of the hip. We performed 141 consecutive HR arthroplasties in 111 patients comprising 3 etiology groups: ON, AS, and osteoarthritis (OA). After retrospective study of retrieved components, we hypothesized that the main reason for revision was femoral loosening in the ON group (4 of 46 hips; 8.7%) and femoral-neck fracture in the AS group (3 of 58 hips; 5.2%). Necrotic areas were seen on femoral heads retrieved from patients with femoral loosening, whereas femoral heads were fixed tightly to components in patients with femoral-neck fractures. Etiology may be an important risk factor for postoperative complications.

Impact of implant size on cement filling in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Larger proportions of cement within femoral resurfacing implants might result in thermal bone necrosis. We postulate that smaller components are filled with proportionally more cement, causing an elevated failure rate. A total of 19 femoral heads were fitted with polymeric replicas of ReCap (Biomet) resurfacing components fixed with low-viscosity cement. Two specimens were used for each even size between 40 and 56 mm and one for size 58 mm. All specimens were imaged with computed tomography, and the cement thickness and bone density were analyzed. The average cement mantle thickness was 2.63 mm and was not correlated with the implant size. However, specimen with low bone density had thicker cement mantles regardless of size. The average filling index was 36.65% and was correlated to both implant size and bone density. Smaller implants and specimens with lower bone density contained proportionally more cement than larger implants. According to a linear regression model, bone density but not implant size influenced cement thickness. However, both implant size and bone density had a significant impact on the filling index. Large proportions of cement within the resurfacing head have the potential to generate thermal bone necrosis and implant failure. When considering hip resurfacing in patients with a small femoral head and/or osteoporotic bone, extra care should be taken to avoid thermal bone necrosis, and alternative cementing techniques or even cementless implants should be considered. This study should help delimiting the indications for hip resurfacing and to choose an optimal cementing technique taking implant size into account.

The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively

We report the long-term survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients aged < 50 years at operation, and explore the factors affecting survival. Between 1997 and 2006, a total of 447 BHRs were implanted in 393 patients (mean age 41.5 years (14.9 to 49.9)) by one designing surgeon. The mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5.2 to 14.7), with no loss to follow-up. In all, 16 hips (3.6%) in 15 patients were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.7 to 98.3) at ten years and 94.1% (95% CI 84.9 to 97.3) at 14 years. Using aseptic revision as the endpoint, the survival for men with primary osteoarthritis (n = 195) was 100% (95% CI 100 to 100) at both ten years and 14 years, and in women with primary osteoarthritis (n = 109) it was 96.1% (95% CI 90.1 to 99.9) at ten years and 91.2% (95% CI 68.6 to 98.7) at 14 years. Female gender (p = 0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p = 0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. The median Oxford hip score (OHS, modified as a percentage with 100% indicating worst outcome) at last follow-up was 4.2% (46 of 48; interquartile range (IQR) 0% to 24%) and the median University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 6.0 (IQR 5 to 8). Men had significantly better OHS (p = 0.02) and UCLA scores (p = 0.01) than women. The BHR provides excellent survival and functional results in men into the second decade, with good results achieved in appropriately selected women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1172–7.

The Canadian Arthroplasty Society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to determine whether the five-year results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Canada justified the continued use of HRA; and second, to identify whether greater refinement of patient selection was warranted.

This was a retrospective cohort study that involved a review of 2773 HRAs performed between January 2001 and December 2008 at 11 Canadian centres. Cox’s proportional hazards models were used to analyse the predictors of failure of HRA. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to predict the cumulative survival rate at five years. The factors analysed included age, gender, body mass index, pre-operative hip pathology, surgeon’s experience, surgical approach, implant sizes and implant types. The most common modes of failure were also analysed.

The 2773 HRAs were undertaken in 2450 patients: 2127 in men and 646 in women. The mean age at operation was 50.5 years (sd 8.72; 18 to 82) and mean follow-up was 3.4 years (sd 2.1; 2.0 to 10.1). At the last follow-up a total of 101 HRAs (3.6%) required revision. Using revision for all causes of failure as the endpoint, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a cumulative survival of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1 to 96.9) at five years. With regard to gender, the five-year overall survival was 97.4% in men (95% CI 97.1 to 97.7) and 93.6% in women (95% CI 92.6 to 94.6). Female gender, smaller femoral components, specific implant types and a diagnosis of childhood hip problems were associated with higher rates of failure. The most common cause of failure was fracture of the femoral neck, followed by loosening of the femoral component.

The failure rates of HRA at five years justify the ongoing use of this technique in men. Female gender is an independent predictor of failure, and a higher failure rate at five years in women leads the authors to recommend this technique only in exceptional circumstances for women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1044–50.

MR imaging of metal-on-metal hip prostheses

Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty was expected to provide benefits over metal-on-polyethylene systems. After widespread placement of MoM implants, outcomes have been disappointing. MoM implants are associated with higher serum levels of metal ions, adverse periarticular soft tissue reactions, and increased long-term failure rates. In light of these findings, it is crucial that patients with MoM implants be closely monitored for adverse effects. MR imaging is ideally suited for assessment of these patients and complements standard clinical evaluation and laboratory testing. This article reviews the background of MoM implants, emerging data on complications, strategies for using MR imaging, and MR imaging findings in patients with reaction to metal.

A comparison of two resurfacing arthroplasty implants: medium-term clinical and radiographic results

The objective of this study was to perform a medium-term analysis comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the CONSERVE® Plus (C+) and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty systems. 137 hips were included in each cohort, with a mean follow-up of 60.0 ± 14.2 months and 63.3 ± 3.5 months in the C+ and BHR cohorts respectively. Latest review UCLA and HHS scores showed statistically significant improvements when compared with preoperative scores for both cohorts. UCLA and SF-12 physical component outcome scores were significantly different (p<0.01 and p = 0.04, respectively). Median serum chromium and cobalt levels were significantly increased in the BHR cohort (p = 0.001). Both cohorts demonstrated excellent Kaplan-Meier 5-year survival rates (96.9% in the C+ cohort, and 96.4% in the BHR cohort). Overall both implants appear to perform well in the medium term.

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.

What is the upper limit of cement penetration for different femoral hip resurfacing components?

We used a validated femoral resurfacing model to obtain measurements of pressure and temperature and quantify cement distribution as a function of inner geometry and cementing technique of five different femoral hip resurfacing components. The purpose was to investigate if manufacture cementing recommendations are reliable. ASR showed only with the recommended manual cementing technique low cement pressures of 58.0±50.2kPa and low interface temperatures of 33.3±4.1°C. BHR had large cement defects of 10.4±1.1mm. Conserve Plus caused the smallest cement penetration depths of 2.9±0.6mm. Durom was tolerant against changes of the cementing technique but showed the widest spread of temperature data 42.8±7.0°C. ReCap showed the highest risk for incomplete seating with a cement mantle thickness of 4.3±0.9mm. Polymerization heat did not exceed the threshold of 45°C with a cement penetration depth of less than 4.2mm in any circumstances of this study.

The biomechanical effect of notch size, notch location, and femur orientation on hip resurfacing failure

For hip resurfacing, this is the first biomechanical study to assess anterior and posterior femoral neck notching and femur flexion and extension. Forty-seven artificial femurs were implanted with the Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) using a range of notch sizes (0, 2, and 5 mm), notch locations (superior, anterior, and posterior), and femur orientations (neutral stance, flexion, and extension). Implant preparation was done using imageless computer navigation, and mechanical tests measured stiffness and strength. For notch size and location, in neutral stance the unnotched group had 1.9 times greater strength than the 5-mm superior notch group (4539 N versus 2423 N, p=0.047), and the 5-mm anterior notch group had 1.6 times greater strength than the 5-mm superior notch group, yielding a borderline statistical difference (3988 N versus 2423 N, p = 0.056). For femur orientation, in the presence of a 5-mm anterior notch, femurs in neutral stance had 2.2 times greater stiffness than femurs in 25° flexion (1542 N/mm versus 696 N/mm, p = 0.000). Similarly, in the presence of a 5-mm posterior notch, femurs in neutral stance had 2.8 times greater stiffness than femurs in 25° extension (1637 N/mm versus 575 N/mm, p = 0.000). No other statistical differences were noted. All femurs failed through the neck. The results have implications for BHR surgical techniques and recommended patient activities.

Short-term functional outcome after hip resurfacing surgery

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is a popular method for treating late stage osteoarthritis, especially in young and active patients. Most studies presenting short-term follow-up after hip resurfacing present radiographic or dual clinician-patient-related outcome. These kinds of outcomes are influenced by interpretation of the clinician and do not tell us much about functional outcome from the patients perspective. Today, functional outcome is often measured using patient-reported outcome instruments. We used the patient-reported 'Hip Disability and osteoarthritis Outcome Score' questionnaire, which has good measurement properties, to assess short-term functional outcome in 160 patients (mean follow-up of 2.6 years) after hip resurfacing surgery. Furthermore, we focused on pain, range of motion, subjective improvement and complications. The majority (86.9%) of patients was free of pain after surgery and range of motion improved significantly. Subjective improvement was indicated in 95% of the patients. Mean HOOS in 149 patients was 87.5. In total, there were 11 complications (6%), and deep infections contributed the most (3.4%). In general, short-term follow-up after hip resurfacing in this cohort showed good clinical and patient-reported functional outcome. When assessing the results of medical interventions, a good PRO instrument can give reliable and valuable information from the patients perspective.

Should we worry about periacetabular interference gaps in hip resurfacing?

BACKGROUND

Press-fit acetabular component seating in hip resurfacing can be challenging as a strong interference fit is required. It has not been established whether reducing the acetabular underream minimizes incomplete component seating or leads to increased acetabular loosening.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We examined (1) the incidence and natural history of postoperative interference gaps in hip resurfacing and (2) whether reduction of the acetabular underream from 2 mm to 1 mm reduces the incidence of periacetabular interference gaps.

METHODS

Of 327 Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacings (Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN, USA) performed by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2010, we evaluated 306 hips with a minimum 1-year radiographic followup. Postoperative periacetabular interference gaps were monitored for radiographic gap resolution at latest followup. The frequency of incomplete component seating was compared between acetabula prepared with 1- and 2-mm underream techniques. Minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 2.7 years; range, 1-6 years).

RESULTS

Fifty-one percent of the postoperative radiographs demonstrated the presence of a periacetabular interference gap. At latest followup, 96% of these gaps were no longer visible. We observed a reduction in the number of interference gaps identified when acetabular preparation changed from a 2-mm underream (63%) to a 1-mm underream (39%). There were no revisions due to acetabular failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Periacetabular interference gaps were common in this series but not associated with acetabular component failure. The use of a 1-mm underream is sufficient for adequate short-term press-fit fixation of the acetabular component in Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacing arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Computer navigation experience in hip resurfacing improves femoral component alignment using a conventional jig

BACKGROUND

The use of computer navigation has been shown to improve the accuracy of femoral component placement compared to conventional instrumentation in hip resurfacing. Whether exposure to computer navigation improves accuracy when the procedure is subsequently performed with conventional instrumentation without navigation has not been explored. We examined whether femoral component alignment utilizing a conventional jig improves following experience with the use of imageless computer navigation for hip resurfacing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2004 and December 2008, 213 consecutive hip resurfacings were performed by a single surgeon. The first 17 (Cohort 1) and the last 9 (Cohort 2) hip resurfacings were performed using a conventional guidewire alignment jig. In 187 cases, the femoral component was implanted using the imageless computer navigation. Cohorts 1 and 2 were compared for femoral component alignment accuracy.

RESULTS

All components in Cohort 2 achieved the position determined by the preoperative plan. The mean deviation of the stem-shaft angle (SSA) from the preoperatively planned target position was 2.2° in Cohort 2 and 5.6° in Cohort 1 (P = 0.01). Four implants in Cohort 1 were positioned at least 10° varus compared to the target SSA position and another four were retroverted.

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral component placement utilizing conventional instrumentation may be more accurate following experience using imageless computer navigation.

Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision

A consecutive cohort of 3076 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings from a single institution was analyzed. The prevalence of femoral neck fracture, the time to fracture, and the outcome after revision were investigated. Fractures occurred in 34 hips (prevalence, 1.1%). Median time to fracture was 0.27 year (range, 0.014-11.2 years). Mean operation time for revision was 59 minutes, and 71% underwent isolated femoral component revision. At a mean follow-up of 5.5 years since revision, 3 patients required re-revision (2 aseptic loosening, 1 for sepsis) giving a survival of 95.7% (confidence interval, 86.9%-100%) at 5 years for the revision. Median Oxford Hip Score was 12.5% (interquartile range, 3.2%-32.3%). There were no cases of radiologic failure during follow-up. Most fractures occur early after hip resurfacing and were straightforward to revise.

Inflammatory pseudotumor causing deep vein thrombosis after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacings have recently been associated with a variety of complications resulting from adverse reaction to metal debris. We report a case of extensive soft tissue necrosis associated with a huge pelvic mass causing extensive deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb secondary to mechanical compression of the iliac vein. This is a rare and unusual cause of deep vein thrombosis after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Hip resurfacing in a district general hospital: 6-year clinical results using the ReCap hip resurfacing system

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study was to prospectively report the clinical results of 280 consecutive hips (240 patients) who received a ReCap Hip Resurfacing System implant (Biomet Inc., Warsaw, USA) in a single district general hospital. Literature reports a large variation in clinical results between different resurfacing designs and published results using this particular design are scarce.

METHODS

Mean follow up was 3.3 years (1.0 to 6.3) and four patients were lost to follow-up. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage hip osteoarthritis, their mean age was 54 years and 76.4% of all patients were male.

RESULTS

There were 16 revisions and four patients reported a Harris Hip Score <70 points at their latest follow up. There were no pending revisions. Kaplan-Meier implant survival probability, with revision for any reason as endpoint, was 93.5% at six years follow-up (95%-CI: 88.8-95.3). There were no revisions for Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris (ARMD) and no indications of ARMD in symptomatic non-revised patients, although diagnostics were limited to ultrasound scans.

CONCLUSIONS

This independent series confirms that hip resurfacing is a demanding procedure, and that implant survival of the ReCap hip resurfacing system is on a critical level in our series. In non-revised patients, reported outcomes are generally excellent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00603395.

Early proximal migration of cups is associated with late revision in THA: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 26 RSA studies and 49 survivalstudies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The association between excessive early migration of acetabular cups and late aseptic revision has been scantily reported. We therefore performed 2 parallel systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the association between early migration of acetabular cups and late aseptic revision.

METHODS

One review covered early migration data from radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies, while the other focused on revision rates for aseptic loosening from long-term survival studies. Thresholds for acceptable and unacceptable migration were classified according the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry: < 5% revision at 10 years.

RESULTS

Following an elaborate literature search, 26 studies (involving 700 cups) were included in the RSA review and 49 studies (involving 38,013 cups) were included in the survival review. For every mm increase in 2-year proximal migration, there was a 10% increase in revision rate, which remained after correction for age, sex, diagnosis, hospital type, continent, and study quality. Consequently, proximal migration of up to 0.2 mm was considered acceptable and proximal migration of 1.0 mm or more was considered unacceptable. Cups with proximal migration of between 0.2 and 1.0 mm were considered to be at risk of having revision rates higher than 5% at 10 years.

INTERPRETATION

There was a clinically relevant association between early migration of acetabular cups and late revision due to loosening. The proposed migration thresholds can be implemented in a phased evidence-based introduction, since they allow early detection of high-risk cups while exposing a small number of patients.

The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series

Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre. In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of 51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1 to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended on gender and the size of the implant. In female hips (n = 267) the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 (SD 8) and the mean UCLA activity score was 6.4 (SD 2). In male hips (n = 379) the ten-year survival was 95% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.4), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 1.7%, the mean OHS was 45 (SD 6) and the mean UCLA score was 7.6 (SD 2). In the most demanding subgroup, comprising male patients aged < 50 years treated for primary osteoarthritis, the survival was 99% (95% CI 97 to 100). This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with conventional THR. In contrast, the results in women have been poor and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of pseudotumour with the passage of time.

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.

Hip resurfacing with the Biomet Hybrid ReCap-Magnum system: 7-year results

The purpose of this study was to report our clinical outcome of a large series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) using the hybrid Biomet ReCap-Magnum system. This is a single-designer surgeon series with an average of 5 ± 1 years. Seven hundred forty consecutive hybrid HRAs were performed in 653 patients. Kaplan-Meier survivorship with any revision as an end point was 96.4% at 7 years. Twenty-five (3.4%) cases were revised: 8 due to acetabular component loosening, 6 due to femoral neck facture, 4 due to failure of femoral component fixation, 2 due to deep infection, 2 due to adverse wear, 1 due to psoas tendonitis, 1 due to recurrent dislocation, and 1 due to unexplained pain. Biomet ReCap and Magnum HRA components with hybrid fixation methods showed excellent survivorship for a minimally selected young patient cohort at 7 years.

Outcomes of birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review

Purpose

We performed a systematic review to assess the functional outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing as reported in peer-reviewed literature.

Methods

We performed a computerized search on the data sources up to February 2011. The following text and key words were searched: “Birmingham hip”, “Birmingham hip resurfacing” and “Hip resurfacing”. Each of these key words was again searched with “outcomes” following them. We also hand searched the bibliographies of the retrieved articles and our own files to identify specifically relevant articles.

Results

Fourteen retrospective studies and three prospective studies were included for review. Each of these studies was evaluated by the criteria given by Sackett and AACPDM. The design, patient criteria, intervention, outcomes, duration of follow up and results of the research were reported.

Conclusions

Although the technique of BHR does allow the femur to be spared, claims that it may allow patients to be more active need to be further investigated.

The safety and efficacy of one-stage bilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty

The objective of this study was to report the perioperative safety and efficacy of single-stage, bilateral hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRAs) in 104 patients. The mean preoperative ASA grade was 1.7 + 0.6, and the mean total operative time was 3 hours and 31 minutes (+ 32 mins). 13 patients (12.5%) required a homologous blood transfusion. Local complications included 5 patients with unilateral, serous, incisional drainage after postoperative day 3, with 1 patient (0.9%) requiring a superficial irrigation and debridement. One systemic complication (0.9%) was noted, as one patient developed atrial fibrillation. There were no episodes of femoral neck fracture, deep venous thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism, although routine screening for thromboembolic disease was not performed. Hospital length of stay averaged 4.1 + 0.9 days, with 76% of patients discharged home. A single-stage procedure carries an acceptable complication risk, requires a low rate of homologous blood transfusion, and has a low rate of local and systemic complications when performed in the appropriately selected patient.

Profunda femoris pseudoaneurysm following Birmingham hip resurfacing: an important differential diagnosis for a periarticular cystic mass

Vascular injury following hip resurfacing arthroplasty is rare: we present a case of profunda femoris pseudoaneurysm complicating hip resurfacing arthroplasty performed via an anterolateral approach. Over recent years, it has been recognized that an adverse reaction to metal debris from metal-on-metal arthroplasties can also result in the development of cystic masses around the hip. This case highlights a potential rare differential diagnosis that needs to be considered when imaging cystic mass lesions around the postoperative hip. Imaging can provide a definitive diagnosis if this entity is considered and its appearances recognized, resulting in appropriate management of this potentially limb- and life-threatening complication.