Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

, Volume 467, Issue 1, pp 66–71

Resurfacing is Comparable to Total Hip Arthroplasty at Short-term Followup

  • Michael A. Mont
  • David R. Marker
  • Jonathan M. Smith
  • Slif D. Ulrich
  • Mike S. McGrath
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2008

Abstract

Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing arthroplasty has had excellent reported results at early to midterm followup, and some studies suggest that outcomes are comparable to conventional THA. We compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two closely matched groups of 54 patients who underwent resurfacing and conventional THA, respectively. Each group consisted of 36 men and 18 women who had a mean age of 52 years and a mean body mass index of 29 kg/m2. At a minimum followup of 24 months (mean, 40 months; range, 24–60 months), the mean Harris hip scores increased similarly in both groups (from 52 to 90 points and from 50 to 91 points for the resurfacing and conventional groups, respectively). Radiographic outcomes, revision rates, complications, pain scores, and satisfaction ratings of the two groups were similar. The patients who underwent resurfacing had higher postoperative weighted activity scores than the patients who underwent conventional THA, although they had higher preoperative weighted activity scores as well. The early outcomes of resurfacing are comparable to those of conventional THA.

Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ. Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:159–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff M, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. ‘Modes of failure’ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harris WH. 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. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1–55.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marker DR, Seyler TM, Jinnah RH, Delanois RE, Ulrich SD, Mont MA. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:66–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mont MA, Marker DR, Seyler TM, Gordon N, Hungerford DS, Jones LC. Knee arthroplasties have similar results in high- and low-activity patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:165–173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ulrich SD, Beaule PE, Boyd HS, Grecula MJ, Goldberg VM, Kennedy WR, Marker DR, Schmalzried TP, Sparling EA, Vail TP, Amstutz HC. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:63–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 Arthroplasty. 2007;22:176–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941;2:281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmalzried TP, Silva M, de la Rosa MA, Choi ES, Fowble VA. Optimizing patient selection and outcomes with total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:200–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:123–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Mont
    • 1
  • David R. Marker
    • 1
  • Jonathan M. Smith
    • 1
  • Slif D. Ulrich
    • 1
  • Mike S. McGrath
    • 1
  1. 1.Rubin Institute for Advanced OrthopedicsSinai Hospital of BaltimoreBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations