Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Short-term functional outcome after hip resurfacing surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C (1984) Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:228–241

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Girard J, Roy AG (2006) A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:997–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:185–189

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Girard J, Lavigne M, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG (2006) Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:721–726

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA (2004) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:28–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A (2005) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:324–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ (2007) The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1431–1438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lilikakis AK, Vowler SL, Villar RN (2005) Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral implant in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: minimum of two years follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36:215–222 (ix)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrich SD, McGrath MS (2009) Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:66–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS (2008) The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:436–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Witzleb WC, Arnold M, Krummenauer F, Knecht A, Ranisch H, Gunther KP (2008) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term clinical and radiographic outcome. Eur J Med Res 13:39–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79

    Google Scholar 

  14. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Emgo institute (2010) COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. http://www.cosmin.nl/. Accessed 12 July 2010

  16. de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Favejee M, Roos EM, Verhaar JA (2007) Validation of the Dutch version of the hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:104–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E (2003) Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 32:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bergeron SG, Desy NM, Nikolaou VS, Debiparshad K, Antoniou J (2009) The early results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing—a prospective study at a minimum two-year follow-up. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67:132–134

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. de la Rosa MA, Silva M, Heisel C, Reich M, Schmalzried TP (2007) Range of motion after total hip resurfacing. Orthopedics 30:352–357

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roach KE, Miles TP (1991) Normal hip and knee active range of motion: the relationship to age. Phys Ther 71:656–665

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Newman MA, Barker KL, Pandit H, Murray DW (2008) Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: could we achieve better function? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:660–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bengs BC, Sangiorgio SN, Ebramzadeh E (2008) Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs. Acta Orthop 79:755–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Macpherson GJ, Breusch SJ (2010) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a critical review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

  25. Shimmin AJ, Back D (2005) Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing: a national review of 50 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:463–464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Della Valle CJ, Nunley RM, Raterman SJ, Barrack RL (2009) Initial American experience with hip resurfacing following FDA approval. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:72–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heilpern GN, Shah NN, Fordyce MJ (2008) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1137–1142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Thomas H. Nijman, Vanessa A. Scholtes, Frank R. A. J. de Meulemeester, Cor P. van der Hart & Rudolf W. Poolman

Authors
  1. Thomas H. Nijman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa A. Scholtes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank R. A. J. de Meulemeester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cor P. van der Hart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rudolf W. Poolman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas H. Nijman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nijman, T.H., Scholtes, V.A., de Meulemeester, F.R.A.J. et al. Short-term functional outcome after hip resurfacing surgery. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23, 197–202 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-0946-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-0946-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation