Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-02-2013 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

Patients Report Improvement in Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Authors: Wael A. Rahman, MD, Nelson V. Greidanus, MD, MPH, Alexander Siegmeth, MD, Bassam A. Masri, MD, Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc, Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2013

Abstract

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.

Amstutz HC. Present state of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2008;17:12–16.PubMed

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

Amstutz HC, Grigoris P. Metal on metal bearings in hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S11–S34.PubMedCrossRef

Amstutz HC, Grigoris P, Dorey FJ. Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip. J Orthop Sci. 1998;3:169–186.PubMedCrossRef

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, Takamura KM, Le Duff MJ. The effect of patient selection and surgical technique on the results of Conserve Plus Hip Resurfacing—3.5 to 14 year follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:133–142.PubMedCrossRef

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

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

Baker RP, Pollard TC, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:158–163.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff M, Gruen T, Amstutz HC. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:87–93.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bellamy N, Buchman WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to anti-rheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed

12.

Bozic KJ, Browne J, Dangles CJ, Manner PA, Yates AJ Jr, Weber KL, Boyer KM, Zemaitis P, Woznica A, Turkelson CM, Wies JL. Modern metal-on-metal implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20:402–406.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Bozic KJ, Chiu V, Slover JD, Immerman I, Kahn JG. Patient preferences and willingness to pay for arthroplasty surgery in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:503–507.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.PubMed

15.

Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:11–19.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, Edlin RP, Foguet P, Prakash U, Griffin DR; Young Adult Hip Arthroplasty Team. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2147.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Coulter G, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:315–321.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:177–184.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:18–27.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr AJ, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.PubMed

21.

De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1291–1297.PubMedCrossRef

22.

DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMed

23.

Dimanji SR, Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M. Hip resurfacing vs metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. In: Bhandari M, ed. Evidence Based Orthopaedics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2012:137–152.

24.

Fowbie VA, de la Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty—patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:108–112.

25.

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. 2010;468:318–325.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Girard J, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG, Lavigne M. [Femoral offset restoration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:376–381.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Glyn-Jones S, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a two-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:172–176.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Gold R, Nasser S, Stall S. Conventional roentgenography with special techniques for follow-up of hip arthroplasty. In: Amstutz HC, ed. Hip Arthroplasty. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1991:121–131.

29.

Grigoris P, Roberts P, Panousis K, Bosch H. The evolution of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:125–134.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Gross TP, Liu F, Webb LA. Clinical outcome of the metal-on-metal hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 hip resurfacing system: an up to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:533–538.e1.

31.

Hall D, Srikantharajah D, Anakwe R, Gaston P, Howie C. Patient-reported outcome following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip and total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2009;19:245–250.PubMed

32.

Hing CB, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Bailey M, Back DL, Shimmin AJ. Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1019–1024.PubMed

33.

Holland JP, Langton DJ, Hashmi M. Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:471–476.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Itayem R, Arndt A, Nistor L, McMinn D, Lundberg A. Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:158–162.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Jiang Y, Zhang K, Die J, Shi Z, Zhao H, Wang K. A systematic review of modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:419–426.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Killampalli VV, Kundra RK, Chaudhry J, Chowdhry M, Fisher NE, Reading AD. Resurfacing and uncemented arthroplasty for young hip arthritis: functional outcomes at 5 years. Hip Int. 2009;19:234–438.PubMed

37.

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

38.

Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA. [Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:361–367.PubMedCrossRef

39.

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;468:326–336.PubMedCrossRef

40.

LeDuff MJ, Wisk LE, Amstutz HC. Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing—a clinical study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:177–181.

41.

Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1550–1554.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Long WT, Dastane M, Harris MJ, Wan Z, Dorr LD. Failure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:400–405.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis. 2011;2011:591253.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1273–1279.PubMed

45.

McKellop H, Park SH, Chiesa R, Doorn P, Lu B, Normand P, Grigoris P, Amstutz H. In vivo wear of three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S128–S140.PubMedCrossRef

46.

McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S89–S98.PubMedCrossRef

47.

McMinn DJ, Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2011;35:231–237.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Migaud H, Jobin A, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Laffargue P, Duquennoy A. Cementless metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age: comparison with a matched control group using ceramic-on-polyethylene after a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(suppl 3):23–28.PubMed

49.

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

50.

Mont MA, Schmalzried TP. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 3):3–11.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA. Radiographic signs of osteointegration in porous coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:176–183.PubMedCrossRef

52.

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

53.

Nishii T, Sugano N, Hidenobu MH, Takao M, Tsuyoshi KT, Yoshikawa H. Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:176–183.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Ortiguera CJ, Pulliam IT, Cabanela ME. Total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis: matched-pair analysis of 188 hips with long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:21–28.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CL, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:847–851.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip: a five to seven year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:592–600.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Rahman L, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Alkinj M. What is the midterm survivorship and function after hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3221–3227.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA, Hua J. Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement—early results. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:8.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Schmalzried TP. Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty: no way under the sun!—in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(suppl 2):70–71.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Schmalzried TP, Peters PC, Maurer BT, Bragdon CR, Harris WH. Long-duration metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:322–331.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Schmidt M, Weber H, Schon R. Cobalt chromium molybdenum metal combination for modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S35–S47.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:463–464.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Shimmin AJ, Baré JV. Comparison of functional results of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: a review of the literature. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:143–151.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Smith TO, Nichols R, Donell ST, Hing CB. The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:684–695.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Smolders JM, Hol A, Rijnberg WJ, van Susante JL. Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:559–666.PubMedCrossRef

66.

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

67.

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

68.

Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:123–131.PubMedCrossRef

69.

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

70.

Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patient less than 65 years old. Hip Int. 2006;16(suppl 4):73–81.PubMed

71.

Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.

72.

Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Köster G, Lohmann CH. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints: a clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:28–36.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Lohmann CH. Histopathological changes around metal/metal joints indicates delayed type hypersensitivity: preliminary results of 14 cases. Osteologie. 2000;9:2–16.

74.

Zywiel MG, Marker DR, McGrath MS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels—a comparison of postoperative outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:116–119.PubMed

Title: Patients Report Improvement in Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty
Authors: Wael A. Rahman, MD
Nelson V. Greidanus, MD, MPH
Alexander Siegmeth, MD
Bassam A. Masri, MD
Clive P. Duncan, MD, MSc
Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc
Publication date: 01-02-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2645-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Patients Report Improvement in Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

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 2/2013

Low Early and Late Dislocation Rates with 36- and 40-mm Heads in Patients at High Risk for Dislocation

Do Obesity and/or Stripe Wear Increase Ceramic Liner Fracture Risk? An XFEM Analysis

Editor’s Spotlight/Take 5: Novel 3-D Quantification and Classification of Cam Lesions in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement (DOI 10.1007/s11999-012-2693-9)

Surgical Technique: Supine Patient Position With the Contralateral Leg Elevated for Femoral Intramedullary Nailing

Surgeon Volume is Associated With Cost and Variation in Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures

Estimating Risk in Medicare Patients With THA: An Electronic Risk Calculator for Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Mortality