Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-07-2012 | Original Paper

Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data

Authors: Reinhard Schuh, Daniel Neumann, Rauend Rauf, Jochen Hofstaetter, Nikolaus Boehler, Gerold Labek

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 7/2012

Abstract

Purpose

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity for treating young and active patients who have arthritis. There are two major data sources for assessing outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty: sample-based clinical trials and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty in terms of revision rate as reported in clinical studies and recorded by national arthroplasty registers.

Methods

A comprehensive literature research was performed from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and annual reports from national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide. Only publications from MEDLINE-listed journals were included. The revision rate was used as the primary outcome parameter. In order to allow for direct comparison of different data sets, calculation was based on revisions per 100 observed component years. For statistical analysis, confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

A total of 18,708 implants, equivalent to 106,565 observed component years, were analysed in the follow-up studies. The register reports contained 9,806 primary cases corresponding to 44,294 observed component years. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in revisions per 100 observed component years between the development team (0.27; CI: 0.14–0.40) and register data (0.74; CI: 0.72–0.76).

Conclusion

The BHR arthroplasty device shows good results in terms of revision rate in register data as well as in clinical studies. However, the excellent results reported by the development team are not reproducible by other surgeons. Based on the results of our study, we believe that comprehensive national arthroplasty registers are the most suitable tool for assessing hip arthroplasty revision rate.

Ollivere B et al (2010) The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: 5-year clinical and radiographic results from a District General Hospital. Int Orthop 34(5):631–634PubMedCrossRef

McMinn DJ et al (2011) Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop 35(2):231–237PubMedCrossRef

McMinn DJ et al (2008) Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing dysplasia component in severe acetabular insufficiency: a six- to 9.6-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(6):715–723PubMedCrossRef

Mont MA et al (2006) Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(8):454–463PubMed

Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Böhler N (2011) Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 35(2):157–163, Epub 2010 Oct 5PubMedCrossRef

Labek G, Stoica CI, Boehler N (2008) Comparison of information in arthroplasty Registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90-B:288–291CrossRef

Schuh R et al (2011) Validity of published outcome data concerning Anatomic Graduated Component total knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop. Apr 13. [Epub ahead of print]

Aulakh TS et al (2010) Hip resurfacing and osteonecrosis: results from an independent hip resurfacing register. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(7):841–845PubMedCrossRef

Back D, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A (2004) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(3):324–329

10.

Baker RP et al (2011) A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):158–163PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bose VC, Baruah BD (2010) Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a minimum follow-up of four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(7):922–928PubMedCrossRef

12.

Carrothers AD et al (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(10):1344–1350PubMedCrossRef

13.

Cooke NJ et al (2009) Bone density of the femoral neck following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Acta Orthop 80(6):660–665PubMedCrossRef

14.

Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(2):177–184PubMedCrossRef

15.

De Smet K (2005) Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 36(2):203–213PubMedCrossRef

16.

Giannini S (2007) Hip resurfacing mid term results of the last generation metal-on-metal devices. J Orthop Traumatol 8:202–206CrossRef

17.

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(9):1137–1142PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hing C, Back D, Shimmin A (2007) Hip resurfacing: indications, results, and conclusions. Instr Course Lect 56:171–178PubMed

19.

Khan M et al (2009) Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1044–1050PubMedCrossRef

20.

Langton DJ et al (2011) Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):164–171PubMedCrossRef

21.

Madhu TS et al (2011) The Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis: an independent single surgeon’s experience at 7-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 26(1):1–8PubMedCrossRef

22.

Marulanda GA et al (2008) Early clinical experience with the use of the Birmingham hip resurfacing system. Orthopedics 31(12 Suppl 2)

23.

McAndrew AR et al (2007) A district general hospital’s experience of hip resurfacing. Hip Int 17(1):1–3PubMed

24.

McBryde CW et al (2008) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in developmental dysplasia: a case–control study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(6):708–714PubMedCrossRef

25.

McBryde CW et al (2010) The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(1):105–112PubMedCrossRef

26.

Nishii T et al (2007) Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 22(2):176–183PubMedCrossRef

27.

Ollivere B et al (2009) Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8):1025–1030PubMedCrossRef

28.

Pollard TC et al (2006) 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 88(5):592–600PubMedCrossRef

29.

Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamaki J (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: Five to eight year results. Int Orthop 35(8):1119–1124PubMedCrossRef

30.

Steffen RT et al (2008) The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):436–441PubMedCrossRef

31.

Swank ML, Alkire MR (2009) Minimally invasive hip resurfacing compared to minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67(2):113–115PubMed

32.

Treacy R, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(2):177–184

33.

Treacy RB et al (2011) Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):27–33PubMedCrossRef

34.

Witzleb WC et al (2009) In vivo wear rate of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty. A review of 10 retrieved components. J Arthroplasty 24(6):951–956PubMedCrossRef

35.

Mcbryde C, Revell MP, Thomas AM, Treacy RB, Pysent PB (2008) The Influence of Surgical Approach on Outcome im BHR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:920–926PubMedCrossRef

36.

Malek I, Hashmi M, Holland JP (2010) Socio economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on patient employment after ten years. Int Orthop. Epub ahead of print (Nov. 27)

37.

Doll R, Hill AB (1956) Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking. A second report on the mortality of Brithish doctors. BMJ 10(5001):1071–1081CrossRef

38.

Lilienfeld A, Lilienfeld DE (1980) Foundations of epidemiology, second edition. Oxford Univ. Press, p. 245

39.

Australian Orthopaedic Association (2010) Hip and knee arthroplasty annual report. Joint Repplacement Registry

40.

New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (2009) Annual report. New Zealand Joint Arthroplasty Register

41.

Danish Hip Arthroplasty,Register (2009) Annual report http://www.dhr.dk/ENGLISH.htm

42.

Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (2009) Annual report. http://www.knee.dk, 2009

43.

Vail TP (2004) Hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19(4):236–244

44.

McGrory B et al (2010) Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(5):306–314PubMed

45.

Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register (2008) Annual report. http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se

46.

Labek G et al (2009) High failure rate of the Duraloc Constrained Inlay. Acta Orthop 80(5):545–547PubMedCrossRef

47.

Labek G et al (2011) Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):143–148PubMedCrossRef

48.

Labek G et al (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 82(2):131–135PubMedCrossRef

49.

Labek G, Stoica CI, Bohler N (2008) Comparison of the information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(3):288–291PubMedCrossRef

50.

Labek G et al (2011) Revision rates after total ankle arthroplasty in sample-based clinical studies and national registries. Foot Ankle Int 32(8):740–745PubMedCrossRef

Title: Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data
Authors: Reinhard Schuh
Daniel Neumann
Rauend Rauf
Jochen Hofstaetter
Nikolaus Boehler
Gerold Labek
Publication date: 01-07-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1502-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2012

Modified tension band for displaced type 2 lateral end clavicle fractures

Cartilage labelling for mechanical testing in T-peel configuration

Comment on Sewell and Eastwood: Screening and treatment in developmental dysplasia of the hip—where do we go from here?

Comparison of low, multidirectional locked nailing and plating in the treatment of distal tibial metadiaphyseal fractures

In vivo function of posterior cruciate ligament before and after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty

Comments on Reito et al.: Assessment of inter- and intra-observer reliability in the determination of radiographic version and inclination of the cup in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing