Journal of Artificial Organs

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 117–123 | Cite as

Long-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients

  • Keisuke Uemura
  • Masaki Takao
  • Hidetoshi Hamada
  • Takashi Sakai
  • Kenji Ohzono
  • Nobuhiko Sugano
Original Article Artificial Skin, Muscle, Bone / Joint, Neuron
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 292 Downloads

Abstract

Several reports have shown good long-term results with the Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty, but little is known about the results in Asian countries where there is a high prevalence of osteonecrosis and developmental dysplasia of the hip, and many females with small femoral head sizes. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the long-term clinical results of the BHR in 112 Japanese patients (53 males and 59 females—130 hips) with an average age of 52 years. Implant survivorship was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method with the endpoint being revision for any reason. Factors such as sex, femoral component size, and type of hip disease were analyzed as predictors of implant survivorship. With a median follow-up of 12 years, six cases were revised (two for femoral component aseptic loosening, two for infection, one for cup aseptic loosening, and one for femoral neck fracture), and the overall survival rate was 96.5% (95% CI 90.9–98.7) at 10 years and 93.6% (95% CI 83.4–97.7) at 15 years. When septic revisions were excluded, the implant survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9–99.6) at 10 years and 95.3% (95% CI 83.9–98.7) at 15 years. Sex, femoral component size, and type of hip disease were not predictors of implant survivorship. In conclusion, good clinical results were obtained with the BHR at 10- and 15-year follow-up in Japanese patients who have different stature and types of hip diseases as compared with patients in Western countries.

Keywords

Birmingham hip resurfacing Long-term results Japanese Asian Implant survivorship 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    McMinn DJ, Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2011;35:231–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;86:185–9. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:308–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerhardt DM, Smolders JM, Rijnders TA, Hol A, van Susante JL. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to 5 years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:308–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aqil A, Drabu R, Bergmann JH, Masjedi M, Manning V, Andrews B, et al. The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. Int Orthop. 2013;37:795–801.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abe H, Sakai T, Nishii T, Takao M, Nakamura N, Sugano N. Jogging after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:131–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haddad FS, Thakrar RR, Hart AJ, Skinner JA, Nargol AV, Nolan JF, et al. Metal-on-metal bearings: the evidence so far. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2011;93:572–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL acetabular system and the ASR hip resurfacing system: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2011;93:2287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Shears E, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of 10 years. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2011;93:27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coulter G, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of 10 years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2012;94:315–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 Jt Surg Br. 2012;94:471–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Der Straeten C, Van Quickenborne D, De Roest B, Calistri A, Victor J, De Smet K. Metal ion levels from well-functioning Birmingham hip resurfacings decline significantly at 10 years. Bone Jt J. 2013;95-B:1332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB, Treacy RB. The outcome of the Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients aged <50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:1172–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Jt J. 2014;96:1298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reito A, Puolakka T, Elo P, Pajamäki J, Eskelinen A. Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 10 years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours. Int Orthop. 2014;38:2251–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mehra A, Berryman F, Matharu GS, Pynsent PB, Isbister ES. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a single surgeon series reported at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1160–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Azam MQ, McMahon S, Hawdon G, Sankineani SR. Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum 10 years’ follow-up. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brooks PJ. Hip resurfacing: a large, US single-surgeon series. Bone Jt J. 2016;98:10–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    No authors listed. National Joint Registry: 13th Annual Report, National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 2016. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Reports,PublicationsandMinutes/Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx (Last accessed 31st July 2017).
  19. 19.
    No authors listed. Australian National Joint Registry Annual Report. 2016. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2016 (Last accessed 31st July 2017).
  20. 20.
    Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Takao M, Koyama T, Yoshikawa H. Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplast. 2007;22:176–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakamura S, Ninomiya S, Nakamura T. Primary osteoarthritis of the hip joint in Japan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;241:190.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorr LD, Faugere MC, Mackel AM, Gruen TA, Bognar B, Malluche HH. Structural and cellular assessment of bone quality of proximal femur. Bone. 1993;14:231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 1993;75:228–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1976;121:20.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: 2 to 6-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2004;86:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hart AJ, Satchithananda K, Liddle AD, Sabah SA, McRobbie D, Henckel J, et al. Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2012;94:317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Daniel J, Ziaee H, Kamali A, Pradhan C, Band T, McMinn DJ. Ten-year results of a double-heat-treated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2010;92:20–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hart AJ, Buddhdev P, Winship P, Faria N, Powell JJ, Skinner JA. Cup inclination angle of greater than 50 degrees increases whole blood concentrations of cobalt and chromium ions after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 2008;18:212–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ. Fracture of the neck of the femur after surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2004;86:1874–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spears IR, Pfleiderer M, Schneider E, Hille E, Morlock MM. The effect of interfacial parameters on cup–bone relative micromotions: a finite element investigation. J Biomech. 2001;34:113–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Hip resurfacing results for osteonecrosis are as good as for other etiologies at 2 to 12 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:375–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Takao M, Nakamura N, Ohzono K, Sakai T, Nishii T, Sugano N. The results of a press-fit-only technique for acetabular fixation in hip dysplasia. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:562–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Matharu GS, Pandit HG, Murray DW. Poor survivorship and frequent complications at a median of 10 years after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:304–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keisuke Uemura
    • 1
  • Masaki Takao
    • 1
  • Hidetoshi Hamada
    • 2
  • Takashi Sakai
    • 2
  • Kenji Ohzono
    • 3
  • Nobuhiko Sugano
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Medical EngineeringOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryAmagasaki Central HospitalAmagasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations