Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 923–928 | Cite as

Correlation between groin pain and cup design of hip-resurfacing implants: a prospective study

  • Julien GirardEmail author
  • Erwan Pansard
  • Reda Ouahes
  • Henri Migaud
  • Cyril Delay
  • Laurent Vasseur
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Cup design has been incriminated as the source of groin pain after hip resurfacing but has not been well described; thus, it was assessed in a prospective study looking at three implant types.

Methods

A group-match was done between three groups of hip resurfacing devices according to age, sex, body mass index, activity level, osteoarthritis aetiology and pre-operative scores.

Results

The global groin pain rate was 5.7 % at six months and 2.7 % at last follow-up. Groin pain rate was significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.004) and had a strong influence on the subjective results (p = 0.04). No groin pain emerged between six months and last follow-up. No clinical differences were noted in Harris hip score and Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score at last follow-up. However, the Oxford hip score and Devane activity score were significantly lower for cups with macrostructures.

Conclusion

The low groin pain rate in this prospective cohort was probably secondary to the specific surgical technique used and seems to be correlated with cup design. Macrostructures on the external part of the cup could be significantly harmful.

Keywords

Groin pain Hip resurfacing Metal-on-metal bearing Coating 

Notes

Conflict of interest

No organization sponsored the research.

J. Girard is a consultant for Wright Medical Technology and H. Migaud is a consultant for Zimmer and Tornier.

References

  1. 1.
    Girard J, Miletic B, Deny A, Migaud H, Fouilleron N (2013) Can patients return to high-impact physical activities after hip resurfacing? A prospective study. Int Orthop 37(6):1019–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Girard J, Bocquet D, Autissier G, Fouilleron N, Fron D, Migaud H (2011) Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients thirty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92–14:2419–2426Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aqil A, Drabu R, Bergmann JH, Masjedi M, Manning V, Andrews B, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Cobb JP (2013) The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. Int Orthop 37(5):795–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krantz N, Miletic B, Migaud H, Girard J (2012) Hip resurfacing in patients under thirty years old: an attractive option for young and active patients. Int Orthop 36(9):1789–1794PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falez F, Favetti F, Casella F, Papalia M, Panegrossi G (2011) Results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop 35(2):239–243PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bin Nasser A, Beaule PE, O’Neill M, Kim PR, Fazekas A (2010) Incidence of groin pain after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468–2:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ala Eddine T, Remy F, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Migaud H, Duquennoy A (2001) Anterior iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty: diagnosis and conservative treatment in 9 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87(8):815–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abbas AA, Kim YJ, Song EK, Yoon TR (2009) Oversized acetabular socket causing groin pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1144–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartelt RB, Yuan BJ, Trousdale RT, Sierra RJ (2010) The prevalence of groin pain after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(9):2346–6PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Sullivan M, Tai CC, Richards S, Skyrme AD, Walter WL, Walter WK (2007) Iliopsoas tendonitis a complication after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(2):166–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lavigne M, Laffosse JM, Ganapathi M, Girard J, Vendittoli P (2011) Residual groin pain at a minimum of two years after metal-on-metal THA with a twenty-eight-millimeter femoral head, THA with a large-diameter femoral head, and hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:93–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Browne JA, Polga DJ, Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME (2011) Failure of larger-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty resulting from anterior iliopsoas impingement. J Arthroplasty 26(6):978–984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heaton K, Dorr LD (2002) Surgical release of iliopsoas tendon for groin pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(6):779–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Devane PA, Horne JG, Martin K, Coldham G, Krause B (1997) Three-dimensional polyethylene wear of a press-fit titanium prosthesis. Factors influencing generation of polyethylene debris. J Arthroplasty 12(3):256–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51(4):737–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):185–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D’Aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Function al results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36(3):451–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M, Nuno N, Plamondon D, Lavigne M (2007) Factors affecting hip range of motion in surface replacement arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 22(9):1004–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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(8):997–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Girard J, Krantz N, Bocquet D, Wavreille G, Migaud H (2012) Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motion. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27(2):165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fouilleron N, Wavreille G, Endjah N, Girard J (2012) Running activity after hip resurfacing: a prospective study. Am J Sport Med 40(4):889–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tannast M, Zheng G, Anderegg C, Burckhardt K, Langlotz F, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA (2005) Tilt and rotation correction of acetabular version on pelvic radiographs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438:182–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH (2008) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55(8):1629–1632Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA (2008) Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 94(4):361–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McMinn DJ, Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C (2011) Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop 35(2):231–237PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamäki J (2011) Birmingham hip resurfacing: five to eight year results. Int Orthop 35(8):1119–1124PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 88–6:721–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pailhé R, Sharma A, Reina N, Cavaignac E, Chiron P, Laffosse JM (2012) Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature. Int Orthop 36(12):2399–2410PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Girard J (2006) Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(6):838–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli PA (2008) 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 468(2):326–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fowble VA, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2009) A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty—patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67(2):108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lavigne M, Rama KR, Roy A, Vendittoli PA (2008) Painful impingement of the hip joint after total hip resurfacing: a report of two cases. J Arthroplasty 23(7):1074–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Trousdale RT, Cabanela ME, Berry DJ (1995) Anterior iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10(4):546–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim YT, Azuma H (1995) The nerve endings of the acetabular labrum. Clin Orthop Relat Res 320:176–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    de Waal Malefijt MC, Huiskes R (1993) A clinical, radiological and biomechanical study of the TARA hip prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 112(5):220–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Matthies AK, Henckel J, Skinner JA, Hart AJ (2011) A retrieval analysis of explanted Durom metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Hip Int 21(6):724–731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berton C, Girard J, Krantz N, Migaud H (2010) The Durom large diameter head acetabular component: early results with a large-diameter metal-on-metal bearing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(2):202–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Girard
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Erwan Pansard
    • 1
    • 3
  • Reda Ouahes
    • 1
  • Henri Migaud
    • 1
  • Cyril Delay
    • 1
  • Laurent Vasseur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRoger Salengro HospitalLilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Sports MedicineUniversity of Lille 2LilleFrance
  3. 3.Service d’orthopédieHôpital Raymond-PoincaréGarchesFrance

Personalised recommendations