Hip Resurfacing Data from National Joint Registries: What Do They Tell Us? What Do They Not Tell Us?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Current-generation metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants (SRAs) have been in widespread global use since the 1990s, and in the United States, specific implants have recently been approved for clinical use. Many recent publications describe short-term survivorship achieved by either implant-designing surgeons or high-volume centers. National joint replacement registries (NJRRs) on the other hand report survivorship achieved from the orthopaedic community at large. We therefore reviewed SRA survivorship from national registry data and compared with that reported from individual centers. Additionally, we compared SRA survivorship reported by registries and compared prognosticators for failure with those of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although resurfacing was associated with an overall increased failure rate in comparison to THA (Australian registry 5-year cumulative revision rate [CRR], 3.7% and 2.7%, respectively), there were exceptions to this. Male patients younger than 65 years with primary osteoarthritis had equivalent results with SRA and THA (Australian registry 5-year CRR, 2.5% and 2.8%, respectively). Head size over 50 mm in diameter was a predictor of surface replacement arthroplasty survivorship and only females with a head diameter of 50 mm or greater (14% of females) had a comparable survivorship to males. Diagnoses other than primary osteoarthritis bear a higher risk of early revision of SRA as compared with THA. Revision of SRA does not lead to reproducible results with rerevision rates of 11% at 5 years. Given these predictors of failure, our review of data from the NJRR suggests stringent patient selection criteria might enhance the survival rates of SRA.
- 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.
- Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Duffy GP, Berry DJ, Rowland C, Cabanela ME. Primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients < 40 years old. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(Suppl 1):140–144.
- Amstutz HC, Dorey E, O’Carroll PF. THARIES resurfacing arthroplasty. Evolution and long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;213:92–114.
- Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Dorey FJ. The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3- to 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:481–489. CrossRef
- Australian Orthopaedic Association Web site. National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report 2008. Available at: www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/. Accessed January 6, 2009.
- Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:324–329. CrossRef
- Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ. Survivorship analysis of cementless total hip arthroplasty in younger patients [Letter]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1590–1591.
- Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff MJ, 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. CrossRef
- Bourne RB, Maloney WJ, Wright GJG. An AOA critical issue the outcome of the outcomes movement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:633–640.
- Cobb JP, Kannan V, Dandachli W, Iranpour F, Brust KU, Hart AJ. Learning how to resurface cam-type femoral heads with acceptable accuracy and precision: the role of computed tomography-based navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:57–64. CrossRef
- Collis DK, Mohler CG. Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:586–592.
- 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. CrossRef
- Hallan G, Lie SA, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE, Havelin LI. Medium- and long-term performance of 11,516 uncemented primary femoral stems from the Norwegian arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1574–1580. CrossRef
- Heilpern GN, Shah NN, Fordyce MJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1137–1142.
- Hing CB, Back DL, Bailey M, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. 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. 2007;89:1431–1438. CrossRef
- Howie DW, Campbell D, McGee M, Cornish BL. Wagner resurfacing arthroplasty: the results of one hundred consecutive arthroplasties after eight to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:708–714.
- Jacobs MA, Goytia RN, Bhargava T. Hip resurfacing through an anterolateral approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:38–44. CrossRef
- Johnsen SP, Sørensen HT, Lucht U, Søballe K, Overgaard S, Pedersen AB. Patient-related predictors of implant failure after primary total hip replacement in the initial, short- and long-terms. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:1303–1308. CrossRef
- Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett J, Phillips CB, Mahomed NN, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1622–1629. CrossRef
- Kim WC, Grogan T, Amstutz HC, Dorey FJ. Survivorship comparison of THARIES and conventional hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 40 years old. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;214:269–277.
- Mâkelä KT, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P, Remes V. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2160–2170.
- Malchau H, Garellick G, Eisler T, Kärrholm J, Herberts P. The Swedish hip registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:19–21. CrossRef
- McBryde CW, Shears E, O’Hara JN, Pynsent PB. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in developmental dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:708–714.
- McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Total hip arthroplasty in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;373:153–163. CrossRef
- Mont MA, Ragland PS, Etienne G, Seyler TM, Schmalzried TP. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14:454–463.
- Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ulrich SD, Beaulé PE, Boyd HS, Grecula MJ, Goldberg VM, Kennedy WR, Marker DR, Schmalzried TP, Sparling EA, Parker Vail T, Amstutz HC. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:63–70.
- Morlock MM, Bishop N, Zustin J, Hahn M, Rüther W, Amling M. Modes of implant failure after hip resurfacing: morphological and wear analysis of 267 retrieval specimens. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:89–95. CrossRef
- National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Fourth Annual Report. Available at: www.njrcentre.org.uk. Accessed January 6, 2009.
- 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.
- Schmalzried TP, Buttman D, Grecula M, Amstutz HC. The relationship between the design, position, and articular wear of acetabular components inserted without cement and the development of pelvic osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76:677–688.
- Schmalzried TP, Silva M, de la Rosa MA, Choi E-S, Fowble VA. Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:200–204. CrossRef
- Seyler TM, Lai LP, Sprinkle DI, Ward WG, Jinnah RH. Does computer-assisted surgery improve accuracy and decrease the learning curve in hip resurfacing? A radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:71–80. CrossRef
- Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:463–464. CrossRef
- Siebel T, Maubach S, Morlock MM. Lessons learned from early clinical experience and results of 300 ASR hip resurfacing implantations. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 2006;220:345–353.
- Söderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Zügner R, Regnér H, Garellick G. Outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Part II: disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:113–119. CrossRef
- Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. The five year results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:436–441. CrossRef
- Stulberg BN, Trier KK, Naughton M, Zadzilka JD. Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:21–26. CrossRef
- Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2006. Available at: www.jru.orthop.gu.se. Accessed January 6, 2009.
- Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2007. Available at: www.jru.orthop.gu.se. Accessed January 6, 2009.
- 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. CrossRef
- Hip Resurfacing Data from National Joint Registries: What Do They Tell Us? What Do They Not Tell Us?
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Volume 468, Issue 2 , pp 351-357
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors