Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-11-2012 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the 2011 Meeting of the International Hip Society

Do Revised Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasties Lead to Outcomes Comparable to Those of Primary and Revised Total Hip Arthroplasties?

Authors: William Desloges, MD, Isabelle Catelas, PhD, Toru Nishiwaki, MD, Paul R. Kim, MD, FRCSC, Paul E. Beaulé, MD, FRCSC

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 11/2012

Abstract

Background

A theoretical clinical advantage of hip resurfacing (HR) is the preservation of femoral bone. HR femoral component revision reportedly yields postoperative function comparable to that of primary THA. However, few studies have looked at the outcome of both HR femoral and acetabular side revisions.

Questions/purposes

We determined whether (1) patients undergoing HR revision to THA have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing primary THA or revision of primary THA and (2) patients undergoing HR revision of both components have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral component only.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed and compared 22 patients undergoing revision HR to a THA to a matched (age, sex, BMI) group of 23 patients undergoing primary THA and 12 patients undergoing primary THA revision. Patients completed the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires before surgery and at latest followup (range, 24–84 months for HR revision, 28–48 months for primary THA, and 24–48 months for revision THA). Blood loss, days in hospital, complications, and outcome scores were compared among groups.

Results

We observed no differences in SF-12 scores but observed lower WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores in the HR revision group than in the primary THA group. Patients undergoing HR revision of both components had comparable SF-12 and WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores but overall lower WOMAC pain scores compared to patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral side only. The HR revision group had greater intraoperative blood loss compared to the primary THA group but not the revision THA group.

Conclusions

The perioperative measures and outcome scores of HR revision are comparable to those of revision THA but not primary THA. Longer followup is required to determine whether these differences persist. Patients undergoing HR revision of one or both components can expect comparable stiffness and function.

Level of Evidence

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

Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF. Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1788–1792.PubMed

Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Wisk LE. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2663–2671.PubMedCrossRef

Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Wisk LE, Takamura KM. Complications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:207–230, viii.PubMedCrossRef

Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:735–741.PubMedCrossRef

Beaule PE, Kim PR, Hamdi A, Fazekas A. A prospective metal ion study of large-head metal-on-metal bearing: a matched-pair analysis of hip resurfacing versus total hip replacement. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:251–257, ix.PubMedCrossRef

Beaule PE, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ, Amstutz HC. Fate of cementless acetabular components retained during revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2288–2293.PubMed

Corten K, MacDonald SJ. Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:351–357.PubMedCrossRef

D’Agostino RB Jr. Tutorial in biostatistics: propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17:2265–2281.PubMedCrossRef

de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Prosser GH, Graves SE, Davidson DC, Stanford TE. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:72–76.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Eswaramoorthy VK, Biant LC, Field RE. Clinical and radiological outcome of stemmed hip replacement after revision from metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1454–1458.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The John Charnley Award. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;468:318–325.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Garrett SJ, Bolland BJ, Yates PJ, Gardner EM, Latham JM. Femoral revision in hip resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1214–1218.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Grammatopolous G, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS. Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1019–1024.PubMedCrossRef

14.

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

15.

Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli PA. The John Charnley Award. The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:426–436.CrossRef

16.

Maffiuletti NA, Impellizzeri FM, Widler K, Bizzini M, Kain MS, Munzinger U, Leunig M. Spatiotemporal parameters of gait after total hip replacement: anterior versus posterior approach. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40:407–415.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Mahadevan D, Challand C, Keenan J. Revision total hip replacement: predictors of blood loss, transfusion requirements, and length of hospitalisation. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010;11:159–165.PubMedCrossRef

18.

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

19.

Newgard CD, Hedges JR, Arthur M, Mullins RJ. Advanced statistics: the propensity score: a method for estimating treatment effect in observational research. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:953–961.PubMed

20.

Patil S, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Quality of life outcomes in revision vs primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:550–553.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Petersen MK, Andersen NT, Mogensen P, Voight M, Soballe K. Gait analysis after total hip replacement with hip resurfacing implant or Mallory-head Exeter prosthesis: a randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2011;35:667–674.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Robinson AH, Palmer CR, Villar RN. Is revision as good as primary hip replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:42–45.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA. Revision of failed hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty rapidly relieves pain and improves function in the early post operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:88.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Shimmin A, Beaule PE, Campbell P. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:637–654.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Shimmin AJ, Beaule PE, Campbell PA. Current concepts: metal on metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:637–654.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Shears E, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:27–33.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M, Roy AG, Lusignan D, Lavigne M. A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3-6 years follow-up. Hip Int. 2010;20:1–13.PubMed

Title: Do Revised Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasties Lead to Outcomes Comparable to Those of Primary and Revised Total Hip Arthroplasties?
Authors: William Desloges, MD
Isabelle Catelas, PhD
Toru Nishiwaki, MD
Paul R. Kim, MD, FRCSC
Paul E. Beaulé, MD, FRCSC
Publication date: 01-11-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 11/2012
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2498-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Do Revised Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasties Lead to Outcomes Comparable to Those of Primary and Revised Total Hip Arthroplasties?

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2012

50 Years Ago in CORR: Survival Car II Murray E. Gibbens MD CORR 1962;23:299–300

Cementing Acetabular Liners Into Secure Cementless Shells for Polyethylene Wear Provides Durable Mid-term Fixation

Prereferral MRI Use in Patients with Musculoskeletal Tumors Is Not Excessive

Alumina Heads Minimize Wear and Femoral Osteolysis Progression After Isolated Simple Acetabular Revision

Cup Press Fit in Uncemented THA Depends on Sex, Acetabular Shape, and Surgical Technique

2011 International Hip Society: Editorial Comment