The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Hip resurfacing and posterior approach total hip arthroplasty have equivalent blood loss when tranexamic acid is used: a propensity score matched cohort analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hip resurfacing (HR) requires a larger approach and soft tissue dissection and might therefore be associated with increased blood loss compared to total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the effect of the adoption of tranexamic acid (TXA) in this setting is unknown. Therefore, the current study compares the blood loss and transfusion requirements between HR and posterior THA in patients receiving TXA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing primary, unilateral THA or HR using a posterior approach between February 2016 and 2020 in which TXA was administered. THA and HR patients were propensity score matched using nearest neighbor greedy matching accounting for demographic, health and surgical variables. Postoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) levels and Hgb drop from preoperative to post-operative day (POD) 1 were compared using t-tests and associated risk factors were assessed using linear mixed modelling.

RESULTS

After matching, each cohort consisted of 1395 patients. Cohorts were similar regarding age, sex, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. No significant differences were found for Hgb levels on POD 1 (12.3 g/dl; p = 0.90) or Hgb drop (2.3 g/dl; p = 0.87). Duration of surgery was significantly longer for HR patients (82 vs 77 min; p < 0.01). Transfusion rate was 0.1% in both cohorts (p = 1.00). Hospital stay was significantly shorter for HR patients (1 vs 2 days; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

HR using a standard TXA regimen is not associated with greater perioperative blood loss than posterior THA and does not result in increased transfusion requirements. Both surgical procedures can be considered equally safe in terms of perioperative blood management when TXA is used.

What is the Level of Evidence Substantiating Commercial Payers' Coverage Policies for Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in the United States has drawn the attention of health care stakeholders. The payers have also used a variety of strategies to regulate the medical necessity of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to examine the level of evidence of the coverage policies being used by commercial payers in the United States.

METHODS

The references of the coverage policies of four commercial insurance companies were reviewed for type of document, level of evidence, applicability to a TJA population, and success of nonoperative treatment in patients with severe degenerative joint disease.

RESULTS

282 documents were reviewed. 45.8% were primary journal articles, 14.2% were level I or II, 41.2% were applicable to patients who were candidates for TJA, and 9.9% discussed the success of nonoperative treatment in patients who would be candidates for TJA.

CONCLUSION

Most of the references cited by commercial payers are of a lower level of scientific evidence and not applicable to patients considered to be candidates for TJA. This is relatively uniform across the reviewed payers. The dearth of high-quality literature cited by commercial payers reflects the lack of evidence and difficulty in conducting high level studies on the outcomes of nonoperative versus operative treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic osteoarthritis. Patients, surgeons, and payers would all benefit from such studies and we encourage professional societies to strive toward that end through multicenter collaboration.

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.

Higher blood loss and transfusion requirement in surface arthroplasty versus conventional total hip replacement

Background and aim of the work: Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) is an alternative to stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA) providing a femoral bone preserving procedure. Because of the wider surgical dissection, an increased blood loss could be expected. This retrospective study evaluates the transfusion requirement in two homogeneous groups of patients who underwent primary hip replacement electively. Methods: Perioperative haematological data of 42 hip resurfacing procedures and 41 conventional cementless THAs were compared. The pre- and post-operative haemoglobin (Hb) levels and the amount of blood transfusions were registered. The median values were compared with use of the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: In the SRA group, a significantly increased (p<0.02) preoperative Hb concentration (13.1 g/dL, range 10.9 to 15.6) was detected in comparison with the THA group (12.5 g/dL, range 10.4 to 15.2). In the resurfacing procedures a median of 900 mL (range 600 to 1500) were transfused vs. 600 (range 300 to 1500) in the conventional THAs, demonstrating a significantly higher transfusion requirement (p<0.04). Conclusions: Whereas hip resurfacing is a femoral bone preserving alternative to conventional THA with comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes, higher blood loss and transfusion requirement may occur. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Increased Risk of Heterotopic Ossification Following Revision Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether surgery for Periprosthetic Joint Infection (PJI) of the hip, the number of procedures and their duration contribute to risk of Heterotopic Ossification formation.

METHODS

56 patients with hip PJI undergoing one-stage (10) or two-stage (46) exchange arthroplasty were matched to 112 patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure based on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgical approach (all direct lateral) and date of surgery (2006-2013). Patients with Paget's disease and ankylosing spondylitis, or preoperative HO were excluded. Perioperative pain management included use of the anti-inflammatory medications in all patients without prophylactic radiotherapy. Six-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed based on Brooker classification.

RESULTS

The incidence of overall HO in PJI and aseptic groups was 84% (47/56) and 11% (12/112), respectively. High grade HO (grades 3 and 4) in PJI and aseptic groups were 25% (24/56) and 4% (4/112), respectively. PJI was an independent risk factor for HO in the multivariate analysis (odds ratio of 9.3, 95% CI: 2.9-29.9, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing surgical treatment of hip PJI seem to be at increased risk of developing HO compared to aseptic failure. HO prophylaxis regimens may be recommendable in eligible patients undergoing surgical intervention for PJI of the hip.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Comparison of revision risks and complication rates between total HIP replacement and HIP resurfacing within the similar age group

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Currently it is not clear whether age is a factor affecting revisions in total hip replacement (THR) and hip resurfacing (HR). This study aimed to investigate which of THR or HR has a higher risk in terms of revision and complication within similar age groups.

METHODS

A systemic review was performed for published literature research databases and local data and compared the two procedures under the condition that both groups of patients were age matched. Meta-analysis techniques were used to analyse revision and complication rates. Twenty-seven literature studies were included along with local audit data. In total, 2520 HR procedures were compared with age-matched 2526 of THR procedures.

MAIN FINDINGS

It was found that revision risk of HR is significantly higher than THR (risk ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.31, p < 0.0001), highlighting that HR has a slightly higher chance of reoperation when compared to THR within the similar age group population. In terms of complications, HR was found to have an advantage over THR (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

THR had a lower revision risk but a slightly higher complication risk than HR under the condition that the two surgical procedures were applied to similar age groups of patients. In other words, age has not played an important role in revision and complication. Survivorship cannot be measured as follow-up periods were different in the studies used.

An Empirical Comparison of Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-Worst Scaling to Estimate Stakeholders' Risk Tolerance for Hip Replacement Surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have been inconclusive regarding the validity and reliability of preference elicitation methods.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the metrics obtained from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and profile-case best-worst scaling (BWS) with respect to hip replacement.

METHODS

We surveyed the general US population of men aged 45 to 65 years, and potentially eligible for hip replacement surgery. The survey included sociodemographic questions, eight DCE questions, and twelve BWS questions. Attributes were the probability of a first and second revision, pain relief, ability to participate in sports and perform daily activities, and length of hospital stay. Conditional logit analysis was used to estimate attribute weights, level preferences, and the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) for undergoing revision surgery in six hypothetical treatment scenarios with different attribute levels.

RESULTS

A total of 429 (96%) respondents were included. Comparable attribute weights and level preferences were found for both BWS and DCE. Preferences were greatest for hip replacement surgery with high pain relief and the ability to participate in sports and perform daily activities. Although the estimated MARs for revision surgery followed the same trend, the MARs were systematically higher in five of the six scenarios using DCE.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms previous findings that BWS or DCEs are comparable in estimating attribute weights and level preferences. However, the risk tolerance threshold based on the estimation of MAR differs between these methods, possibly leading to inconsistency in comparing treatment scenarios.

Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome

Aims

We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a review of registries that are full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Results

Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined, though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient reported outcome measures.

Conclusion

More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly important, the experience of established registries will be valuable in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the quality of data. Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of these data to monitor outcomes accurately. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.

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 Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients

Hip resurfacing has been considered a good treatment option for younger, active osteoarthritis patients. However, there are several identified issues concerning risk for neck fractures and issues related to current metal-on-metal implant designs. Neck-preserving short-stem implants have been discussed as a potential alternative, but it is yet unclear which method is better suited for younger adults. We compared hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS) from a young group of patients (n = 52, age 48.9 ± 6.1 years) who had received hip resurfacing (HR) with a cohort of patients (n = 73, age 48.2 ± 6.6 years) who had received neck-preserving, short-stem implant total hip arthroplasty (THA). Additionally, durations for both types of surgery were compared. HOOS improved significantly preoperatively to last followup (>1 year) in both groups (p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.69); there were no group effects or interactions. Surgery duration was significantly longer for resurfacing (104.4 min ± 17.8) than MiniHip surgery (62.5 min ± 14.8), U = 85.0, p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.56. The neck-preserving short-stem approach may be preferable to resurfacing due to the less challenging surgery, similar outcome, and controversy regarding resurfacing implant designs.

[Cement-free and cemented Excia hip shaft prosthesis: comparison of intermediate term results]

AIM OF THE STUDY

For fixation of total hip prostheses, cemented and cement-free techniques are available. Normally, anchoring techniques and the definitive endoprosthesis model are determined preoperatively based on the available information, such as the quality of bone. Some newer endoprosthesis models utilize the same instruments for both implantation techniques. In this way it is possible to decide on the final anchoring technique intraoperatively. Because such a combined endoprosthesis system has been used in our clinic for 10 years, we were interested in the clinical results at the intermediate stage.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a prospective, non-randomized study 105 pairs from a continuing series were formed from 105 cases treated with cement-free prostheses and the latest cemented shaft implants from the same year. In this way a total of 210 hip shaft endoprostheses from the years 2002 to 2006 were included in the study. After an average time period of 6.3 years (range 4.5-8.2 years) the patients were recalled for a follow-up examination. The clinical results, early and late complications were analyzed. The immediately postoperative X-ray images and those from the follow-up examination were evaluated by an independent external expert with respect to primary positioning, migration and any signs of loosening.

RESULTS

At the follow-up examination at an average of 6.3 years the quota was 73%. The indications for cement-free/cemented total hip endoprosthesis were: primary arthritis 87%/98%, secondary arthritis 10%/2% and others 3%/0%. At the time of the last follow-up examination 4 and 14 patients, respectively, had died. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was given as 0.72/0.78. The Harris hip score improved from 54/48 to 93/90 points. The implant-related survival rate was 99.5%. Due to a periprosthetic fracture one of the cemented shafts had to be removed. Luxation occurred in 3/2 cases, respectively, of which 4 could be conservatively treated. In one cement-free case a head elongation and a change to an inlay with an anti-luxation shoulder was necessary. A fracture of the trochanter major was conservatively treated and an intraoperative shaft fissure was stabilized with wire cerclage and titan banding. The radiological evaluation showed no implant loosening or statistically significant differences in the shaft positioning.

DISCUSSION

Short and intermediate clinical and radiological results showed no differences in patients of similar average age in the sixth decade of life. The significant improvements in the Harris hip score and the range of movement could be confirmed in the intermediate term and are comparable to other current implants. It can be concluded that an intraoperative decision on the fixation technique based on the macroscopically visible bone quality supports the reliably good results of both methods.

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.

Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years

There is a need of independent prospective studies about modern generation of hip resurfacing implants. The aim of this propective observational study was to compare the functional outcomes and revision rates with hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty and to present the preliminary results at 2 years. Patients included were recruited prospectively in the Partial Pelvic Replacement Hip Project by a single surgeon between January 2007 and January 2010. Patients were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (MDA) score and Devane Score. The end point of the study was reoperation for any cause related to the prosthesis. At a mean follow up of 38.6 months there were a total of 142 patients with hip resurfacing (group 1) [100 Durom^® (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA) and 42 Birmingham Hip Resurfacing^® (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)] and 278 patients with total hip arthroplasty (group 2). The results showed significantly greater gain of HHS, MDA and Devane score with hip resurfacing procedures. However, considering all the complications, the rate was significantly higher in group 16.4% vs 1.79% in group 2 (P<0.0001). In group 1 we observed 6 complications only concerned males with Durom^® implants. The follow up of this cohort is still on going and may deliver more information on the evolution of these results in time.

Incidence of heterotopic ossification after surface and conventional total hip arthroplasty: a comparative study using anterolateral approach and indomethacin prophylaxis

The incidence and severity of heterotopic ossification (HO) in two homogeneous groups of patients that received surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) and conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) were evaluated retrospectively. Thirty-nine patients undergoing 42 hip resurfacing procedures and 41 primary cementless THAs through an anterolateral approach received a 10-day course of 150 mg/die of indomethacin postoperatively. The median surgical time was 190 minutes and 156 minutes, respectively (P < 0.003). At a minimum 1-year followup, the development of HO was assessed on standard X-ray using Brooker grading. Ectopic bone formation was detected in five cases (11.9%, two Brooker grade I and three grade II) in the SRA group and in 14 hips (34.1%, 12 grade I and two grade II) treated with conventional THA, but the difference was not significant (P < 0.11). No clinically relevant periprosthetic ossification (Brooker III or IV) occurred in both groups. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the incidence of HO after SRA was lower than conventional THA. More extensive soft tissue trauma, bone debris, and longer operative time in hip resurfacing are not likely to be absolute risk factors for HO. Further investigations including larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in Men

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing patients and compare them to standard primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed during the same period of time.

Methods

One hundred and fourteen consecutive men who had a mean age of 50 years (range, 20 to 85 years) and who had undergone 120 hip resurfacing arthroplasties between 2007 and 2009 were compared to 117 consecutive men (120 hips) who had undergone a standard total hip arthroplasty during the same time period. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range, 24 to 55 months) for both groups. Outcomes evaluated included implant survivorship, hip scores, activity levels, and complication rates.

Results

In the resurfacing hip arthroplasty cohort, implant survivorship was 98% with two patients requiring a revision surgery one for femoral neck fracture and another for femoral head loosening. In comparison, implant survivorship was 99% in the standard total hip arthroplasty cohort, with 1 revision due to peri-prosthetic fracture which was successfully treated with a femoral component revision. In the resurfacing and standard hip arthroplasty cohorts, the mean post-operative Harris hip scores had improved to 96 and 94 points, respectively and were statistically similar. The resurfacing cohort had achieved a significantly higher mean post-operative University of California Activity Score (6.7 versus 5 points). There were no differences in the complication rates between the two cohorts.

Conclusion

When patients meet the appropriate selection criteria in the hands of experienced and high-volume arthroplasty surgeons, hip resurfacing provides excellent results at short- to mid-term follow-up.

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.

Successful fixation of an intertrochanteric fracture after hip resurfacing arthroplasty using cannulated screws

We report a case of successful treatment of a high, stable intertrochanteric fracture (type 1) in a 59-year-old man. He sustained the injury 8 years after the resurfacing procedure. The fracture was fixed using three 6.5-mm cannulated screws, and he has returned to his normal level of activities 8 months after the fixation. We have shown that fixation with cannulated screws may be an acceptable option for treatment of high trochanteric fractures where a stable anatomical reduction can be obtained. We have also included a review of the literature for other reported surgical treatment options of this complication.

Hip arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty is a cost-effective surgical procedure undertaken to relieve pain and restore function to the arthritic hip joint. More than 1 million arthroplasties are done every year worldwide, and this number is projected to double within the next two decades. Symptomatic osteoarthritis is the indication for surgery in more than 90% of patients, and its incidence is increasing because of an ageing population and the obesity epidemic. Excellent functional outcomes are reported; however, careful patient selection is needed to achieve best possible results. The present economic situation in many developed countries will place increased pressure on containment of costs. Future demand for hip arthroplasty, especially in patients younger than 65 years, emphasises the need for objective outcome measures and joint registries that can track lifetime implant survivorship. New generations of bearing surfaces such as metal-on-metal, ceramic-on-ceramic, and metal-on-ceramic, and techniques such as resurfacing arthroplasty have the potential to improve outcomes and survivorship, but findings from prospective trials are needed to show efficacy. With the recall of some metal-on-metal bearings, new bearing surfaces have to be monitored carefully before they can be assumed to be better than traditional bearings.

Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales

BACKGROUND

Implant survival after conventional total hip replacement (THR) is often poor in younger patients, so alternatives such as hip resurfacing, with various sizes to fit over the femoral head, have been explored. We assessed the survival of different sizes of metal-on-metal resurfacing in men and women, and compared this survival with those for conventional stemmed THRs.

METHODS

We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) for primary THRs undertaken between 2003 and 2011. Our analysis involved multivariable flexible parametric survival models to estimate the covariate-adjusted cumulative incidence of revision adjusting for the competing risk of death.

FINDINGS

The registry included 434,560 primary THRs, of which 31,932 were resurfacings. In women, resurfacing resulted in worse implant survival than did conventional THR irrespective of head size. Predicted 5-year revision rates in 55-year-old women were 8·3% (95% CI 7·2-9·7) with a 42 mm resurfacing head, 6·1% (5·3-7·0) with a 46 mm resurfacing head, and 1·5% (0·8-2·6) with a 28 mm cemented metal-on-polyethylene stemmed THR. In men with smaller femoral heads, resurfacing resulted in poor implant survival. Predicted 5-year revision rates in 55-year-old men were 4·1% (3·3-4·9) with a 46 mm resurfacing head, 2·6% (2·2-3·1) with a 54 mm resurfacing head, and 1·9% (1·5-2·4) with a 28 mm cemented metal-on-polyethylene stemmed THR. Of male resurfacing patients, only 23% (5085 of 22076) had head sizes of 54 mm or above.

INTERPRETATION

Hip resurfacing only resulted in similar implant survivorship to other surgical options in men with large femoral heads, and inferior implant survivorship in other patients, particularly women. We recommend that resurfacing is not undertaken in women and that preoperative measurement is used to assess suitability in men. Before further new implant technology is introduced we need to learn the lessons from resurfacing and metal-on-metal bearings.

FUNDING

National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Do survival rate and serum ion concentrations 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing provide evidence for continued use?

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns attributable to problems associated with metal-on-metal bearing surfaces, current evidence for the use of hip resurfacing is unclear. Survival rates reported from registries and individual studies are controversial and the limited long-term studies do not conclusively allow one to judge whether hip resurfacing is still a reasonable alternative to conventional THA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether the long-term survival rate of hip resurfacing is comparable to that of conventional THA and certain factors can be identified that influence serum ion concentration 10 years postoperatively. We specifically assessed (1) the 10-year survivorship in the whole cohort and in male and female patients, (2) serum concentrations of metal ions in patients with hip resurfacing who had not undergone revision surgery, and (3) potential influencing factors on the serum ion concentration.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our first 95 patients who had 100 hip resurfacings performed from 1998 to 2001. The median age of the patients at surgery was 52 years (range, 28-69 years); 49% were men. We assessed the survival rate (revision for any reason as the end point), radiographic changes, and serum ion concentrations for cobalt, chromium, and molybdenum. The correlations between serum ion concentration and patient-related factors (age, sex, BMI, activity) and implant-related factors (implant size, cup inclination, stem-shaft angle) were investigated. The minimum followup was 9.3 years (mean, 10 years; range, 9.3-10.5 years).

RESULTS

The 10-year survivorship was 88% for the total cohort. The overall survival rate was greater in men (93%) than in women (84%). Median serum ion levels were 1.9 μg/L for chromium, 1.3 μg/L for cobalt, and 1.6 μg/L for molybdenum. Radiolucent lines around acetabular implants were observed in 4% and femoral neck thinning in 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our overall failure rate was greater than anticipated, the relatively low serum ion levels and no revisions for pseudotumors in young male patients up to 10 years postoperatively provide some evidence of the suitability of hip resurfacing in this subgroup.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Minimally invasive versus conventional joint arthroplasty

With an aging population, as well as a heightened interest in physical activity, the demand for surgical treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee, hip, and shoulder has continued to expand. This demand traditionally has been met with total joint replacements as the definitive treatment. However, with the development of newer, minimally invasive techniques, patients are being offered a greater variety of options for pain relief and improvement in function. These surgical options, varying widely from arthroscopic treatment to partial joint replacements, have been met with mixed results as they have been applied to the treatment of osteoarthritis. Although they are limited in their application and target population, minimally invasive procedures may greatly enhance the outcome of the patient, as well as prevent or delay the need for future total joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this article is to review minimally invasive surgical options for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip, knee, and shoulder. We also examine their appropriate application, limitations, clinical outcomes, and associated complications. A brief review of total joint arthroplasty for the aforementioned joints has been included to provide a comparison of the associated clinical outcomes and surgical complications.

Total hip arthroplasty for adult hip dysplasia

Preoperative planning is essential to define anatomy, clarify the operative approach and exposure, and ensure that suitable implants are available.Concerns exist regarding the long-term effectiveness and safety of hip resurfacing arthroplasty for the young dysplastic hip.In light of current evidence, concerns exist regarding the use of metal-on-metal articulations for hip arthroplasty in the young dysplastic hip.The ideal bearing surface is not known, although the longest data available support the use of metal-on-polyethylene.

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.

The failure of survivorship

This editorial considers the shortcomings of assessing outcome after joint replacement only by the survival of the implant.