Do clinical and quality of life scores change over time after hip resurfacing?

Long-term results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 65 years of age or older

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MMHRA) is typically used in young and active patients because they have the most to gain from this bone-preserving procedure. However, there is very little long-term data on the performance of MMHRA in patients 65 years of age or older because of the efficacy of conventional total hip arthroplasty in this patient population.

METHODS

109 patients (124 hips) age ⩾65 years were treated with Conserve Plus MMHRA. There were 83 male and 26 female patients. Their mean age at surgery was 69.5 (range 65-83) years. UCLA hip scores, SF-12 quality of life score were collected at follow-up visits. Radiographic and survivorship analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SF-12 scores and UCLA scores were maintained over time except for a small decrease in activity. 4 patients underwent revision surgery. The 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the cohort was 93.7%. All revisions surgeries were successful at a mean follow-up time of 113 (range 30-218) months. Unusual radiographic findings from our previous publication did not progress over time except for 1 hip that showed a complete radiolucency around the acetabular component.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly show that HRA is a viable prosthetic solution with many advantages for all active patients, regardless of their age at the time of surgery.

What are the results of revised hip resurfacing arthroplasties?

Aims

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is typically indicated for young and active patients. Due to the longevity of arthroplasty, these patients are likely to undergo revision surgery during their lifetime. There is a paucity of information on the long-term outcome of revision surgeries performed after failed HRA. The aim of our study was to provide survivorship data as well as clinical scores after HRA revisions.

Methods

A total of 42 patients (43 hips) were revised after HRA at our centre to a variety of devices, including four HRA and 39 total hip arthroplasties (THAs). In addition to perioperative complications, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) hip scores and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12) quality of life scores were collected at follow-up visits after the primary HRA and after revision surgery.

Results

The mean follow-up time after revision surgery was 8.3 years (0.3 to 19.1). The mean UCLA pain and function scores post-revision were comparable with the best scores achieved by the patients after the index HRA, but UCLA activity scores were lower after revision. SF-12 physical component scores were comparable between timepoints, but the mental component score decreased after revision. Six patients underwent unilateral re-revision surgery at a mean follow-up time of 7.8 years (0.3 to 13.7). Using the time to any re-revision as endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 85.3% at 13 years.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing revision after HRA can expect to achieve function and quality of life similar to their best after their primary surgery, while the risk of re-revision is low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1289–1296.

Sex-specific risk factors determine the survivorship of female and male patients after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

The need for revision surgery after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is more prevalent for women than for men. However, there is a paucity of information to explain this observation. We aimed (1) to determine sex-specific risk factors leading to revision surgery; and (2) to correlate these risk factors to the dominant modes of failure of HRA.

METHODS

1101 patients (1375 consecutive hips) including 292 women (355 hips) and 809 men (1020 hips) with a mean age of 51.3 years were included regardless of bone quality. The contact patch to rim distance was computed.

RESULTS

A contact patch to rim (CPR) distance of ⩽7 mm, an aetiology of developmental dysplasia, a postoperative abduction-adduction arc of ⩾95°, and a metaphyseal stem left uncemented were risk factors associated with revision surgery for female patients, while a CPR distance of ⩽10 mm, a component size of ⩽46 mm, an age at surgery of ⩽55 years, and an early femoral preparation technique were risk factors for male patients. Hips with no risk factors from the female group had a survivorship of 98.7% at 15 years, matching or exceeding the results of all male subgroups. However the risk factors in the female group increased the risk of revision much more than in the male group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of risk factors, the survivorship of HRA in female patients is equal to that of males. Many female patients can safely benefit from HRA by excluding severe dysplasia and optimising surgical technique.

Is a cementless fixation of the femoral component suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) typically uses a hybrid design (cemented femoral component and cementless acetabular shell) but has recently been performed with fully cementless components. There is a paucity of information on the clinical performance of these cementless designs.

METHODS

The UCLA clinical scores, SF-12 quality of life scores, complication rates, survivorship and radiographic signs of loosening or gross stress shielding of 39 hips (39 male patients) implanted with cementless HRA were compared with those of 40 hips (37 male patients) implanted with hybrid HRA during the same time frame.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in postoperative clinical and quality of life scores, complication rates, or radiographic signs of loosening between the 2 groups. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 97.2% for the cementless group and 100% for the hybrid group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.3694). There were no femoral component failures in any of the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 6 years, there is no tangible difference between the performance of cementless HRA compared to hybrid HRA. The absence of learning curve associated with this device and the potential for better preservation of femoral neck bone mineral density suggest that this technology is well suited for young patients with good bone quality seeking to resume an active lifestyle including high-impact activities.

Patient-reported outcomes in hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a register-based matched cohort study of 726 patients

Background and purpose - The theoretical mechanical advantages of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been questioned. Studies including measures of patient-reported function, physical activity, or health-related quality of life have been sparse. We compared patient-reported outcomes in MoM-HR patients with a matched group of patients with conventional THA at 7 years post-surgery. Patients and methods - Patients and patient data were retrieved from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. The case group, consisting of 363 patients with MoM-HR, was matched 1:1 with a control group, consisting of patients with a conventional THA. Patients were sent a postal patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) questionnaire including the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EQ-5D, and VAS pain. We used multivariable linear regression analyses to investigate the influence of prosthesis type. Results - 569 patients (78%) returned the questionnaire with complete responses (299 MoM-HRs and 270 conventional THAs). MoM-HR was associated with better scores in HOOS function of daily living (4 percentage units) and HOOS function in sport and recreation (8 percentage units) subscales. Type of prosthesis did not influence HOOS quality of life, HOOS pain, HOOS symptoms, EQ-5D index, hip pain, or satisfaction as measured with visual analog scales. Interpretation - At mean 7 years post-surgery, patients with hip resurfacing had somewhat better self-reported hip function than patients with conventional THA. The largest difference between groups was seen in the presumed most demanding subscale, i.e., function in sport and recreation.

The mean ten-year results of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Aims

This study presents the long-term survivorship, risk factors for prosthesis survival, and an assessment of the long-term effects of changes in surgical technique in a large series of patients treated by metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Patients and Methods

Between November 1996 and January 2012, 1074 patients (1321 hips) underwent HRA using the Conserve Plus Hip Resurfacing System. There were 787 men (73%) and 287 women (27%) with a mean age of 51 years (14 to 83). The underlying pathology was osteoarthritis (OA) in 1003 (75.9%), developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in 136 (10.3%), avascular necrosis in 98 (7.4%), and other conditions, including inflammatory arthritis, in 84 (6.4%).

Results

The mean follow-up time was 10.5 years (1 to 20). Using revision for any reason as the endpoint, the overall survivorship at 15 years was 89.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.8 to 91.4). There was a substantial increase between the first and second generation of surgical technique (86.6% vs 90.1%; p = 0.05). Men with idiopathic OA had a 15-year survivorship of 94.5% and women, 82.2% (p = 0.001); gender was not a risk factor after stratification by component size and aetiology. Using revision for excessive wear (ion levels > 7 µg/l associated with symptoms or adverse local tissue reactions) as the endpoint, the 15-year survivorship was 98.5%. Risk factors for revision for all modes of failure were an underlying pathology of hip dysplasia, a contact patch to rim (CPR) distance of 7 mm or less, an age at surgery of 55 years or less, and a femoral component size of 46 mm or less. Specific risk factors for aseptic failure of the femoral component were early surgical technique, a cementless metaphyseal stem, and a body mass index of 24 kg/m2 or less.

Conclusion

HRA is a viable concept; metal-on-metal bearings are well suited for this procedure when a well-designed device is properly implanted. The best results were obtained in men with OA, but survivorship was better for other underlying pathologies and for women after changes were made to the technique of implantation. Lifetime durability is a possible outcome for many patients despite a high level of activity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1424–33.

Mid-term results of ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with mean follow-up of 7.1 years

INTRODUCTION

Despite enthusiasm for metal-on-metal bearings, disappointing short- to mid-term outcomes has all but halted the use of this bearing articulation. This review presents mid-term results for the ReCap Magnum total hip replacement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study evaluated 79 ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc total hip replacements with mean follow-up of 7.1 (range 3.7-9.2) years. 43 were female and 36 male. Metal ions were measured and radiographic measurement included a 'margin of safety' angle to quantify risk of edge loading. When a clinical suspicion of adverse reaction to metal debris was present, patients had metal artefact reduction sequence MRI. Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score evaluated functional outcome and SF-12 and EQ-5L-5D assessed quality of life at final follow-up.

RESULTS

7 hips were revised indicating 91.1% survivorship at 7.1 years. Postoperative Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score significantly improved. Females and symptomatic patients predicted increased metal ions. Margin of safety correlated with postoperative Oxford Hip Score. Symptomatic hips and positive MRI showed reduced survivorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to more traditional bearings like metal or ceramic on polyethylene the overall outcome of this ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc study cohort is modest. It is felt that further failures will occur in this group therefore cautious interpretation of the results is justified given the potential for reduced survival outcomes.

Assessing change in patient-reported quality of life after elective surgery: protocol for an observational comparison study

Despite their widespread use, the two main methods of assessing quality of life after surgery have never been directly compared. To support patient decision-making and study design, we aim to compare these two methods. The first of these methods is to assess quality of life before surgery and again after surgery using the same validated scale. The second is simply to ask patients whether or not they think their post-operative quality of life is better, worse, or the same. Our primary objective is to assess agreement between the two measures. Secondary objectives are to calculate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the variation across surgical specialties. To accomplish these aims, we will administer surveys to patients undergoing elective surgery, both before surgery and again 30 days after surgery. This protocol follows detailed guidelines for observational study protocols.

Hip resurfacing for osteonecrosis

Aims

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head. Our aim was to report the long-term outcome of HRA, which is not currently known.

Patients and Methods

Long-term survivorship, clinical scores and radiographic results for 82 patients (99 hips) treated with HRA for ON over a period of 18 years were reviewed retrospectively. The mean age of the 67 men and 15 women at the time of surgery was 40.8 years (14 to 64). Patients were resurfaced regardless of the size of the osteonecrotic lesion.

Results

The mean clinical follow-up was 10.8 years (2 to 18). The mean University of California, Los Angeles hip scores at the last follow-up were 9.3, 9.4, 9.2 and 6.8 for pain, walking, function and activity, respectively. A total of six hips underwent revision surgery, four for loosening of the femoral component and two for loosening of the acetabular component. Using any revision as an end point, the 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 90.3%. There were no wear-related failures. There were no femoral failures among the hips reconstructed with a cemented metaphyseal stem. A total of five hips showed narrowing of the femoral neck; all stabilised and remain asymptomatic, 21 showed signs of femoral neck impingement.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first report of a series of HRA performed for ON with 15-year survivorship. Our data confirm that patients with advanced stages of ON of the femoral head are excellent candidates for HRA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:901–9.

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional, stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA). The best reported results are young, active patients with good bone stock and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Since the 1990s, metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA has achieved excellent outcomes when used in the appropriate patient population. Concerns regarding the metal-on-metal bearing surface including adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to metal debris have recently lead to a decline in the use of this construct. The current paper aims to provide an updated review on HRA, including a critical review of the most recent literature on HRA.

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

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

Are There Long-term Benefits to Cementing the Metaphyseal Stem in Hip Resurfacing?

BACKGROUND

Cementing the metaphyseal stem during hip resurfacing surgery improves the initial fixation of the femoral component. However, there may be long-term detrimental effects such as stress shielding or an increased risk of thermal necrosis associated with this technique.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We compared (1) long-term survivorship free from radiographic femoral failure, (2) validated pain scores, and (3) radiographic evidence of component fixation between hips resurfaced with a cemented metaphyseal stem and hips resurfaced with the metaphyseal stem left uncemented.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected all the patients who had undergone bilateral hip resurfacing with an uncemented metaphyseal stem on one side, a cemented metaphyseal stem on the other side, and had both surgeries performed between July 1998 and February 2005. Forty-three patients matched these inclusion criteria. During that period, the indications for cementing the stem evolved in the practice of the senior author (HCA), passing through four phases; initially, only hips with large femoral defects had a cemented stem, then all stems were cemented, then all stems were left uncemented. Finally, stems were cemented for patients receiving small femoral components (< 48 mm) or having large femoral defects (or both). Of the 43 cemented stems, two, 13, 0, and 28 came from each of those four periods. All 43 patients had complete followup at a minimum of 9 years (mean, 143 ± 21 months for the uncemented stems; and 135 ± 22 months for the cemented stems; p = 0.088). Survivorship analyses were performed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards ratios using radiographic failure of the femoral component as the endpoint. Pain was assessed with University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) pain scores, and radiographic femoral failure was defined as complete radiolucency around the metaphyseal stem or gross migration of the femoral component.

RESULTS

There were four failures of the femoral component in the press-fit stem group while the cemented stem group had no femoral failures (p = 0.0471). With the numbers available, we found no differences between the two groups regarding pain relief or radiographic appearance other than in patients whose components developed loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Cementing the metaphyseal stem improves long-term implant survival and does not alter long-term pain relief or the radiographic appearance of the proximal femur as had been a concern based on the results of finite element studies. We believe that patients with small component sizes and large femoral head defects have more to gain from the use of this technique which adds surface area for fixation, and there is no clinical downside to cementing the stem in patients with large component sizes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.