The Influence of Surgical Approach on Outcome in Birmingham Hip Resurfacing
- 167 Downloads
Various approaches have been described for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. We compared the posterolateral and direct lateral approaches for complications, pain, function, and implant survival in the short and medium term for two surgeons in a consecutive series of 790 patients (909 hips; July 1997 to July 2004) followed until July 2007. The direct lateral approach group included 135 resurfacing procedures and the posterolateral group included 774 procedures. There was no difference between the two groups for age or gender. The minimum followup for the anterolateral group was 2 years (mean, 5.1 years; range, 2.0–9.4 years) and for the posterolateral group 2 years (mean, 5.5 years; range, 2.0–9.6 years). There were no differences between the two approaches for complications, additional surgery, implant survival, or Oxford hip scores. The 8-year survival rate was 97.9% (95% confidence interval, 89.9–100) for the direct lateral approach and 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 93.9–99.3) for the posterolateral approach. This study indicates both approaches offer excellent pain reduction and return to function after Birmingham hip resurfacing with no difference in survival or in the incidence of complications. An 8-year survival rate of 97% can be achieved using either the posterolateral approach or the direct lateral approach.
Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
KeywordsFemoral Head Femoral Component Femoral Neck Fracture Acetabular Component Posterolateral Approach
We thank the staff of the Research and Teaching Centre at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, for support in the production of this research.
- 10.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Kim WY, Muddu BN. Eleven-year results of the ABG I hip replacement. Int Orthop. 30:182–184.Google Scholar
- 18.NJR Steering Committee. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 3rd Annual Clinical Report. The NJR Centre, Hemel Hempstead, UK, February 2006. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/documents/reports/annual/3rd/NJR_AR2_LR.pdf. Accessed July 2007.
- 22.Pynsent PB, Adams DJ, Disney SP. The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:241–248. Errata. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1166.Google Scholar
- 23.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2006.Google Scholar