Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

, Volume 467, Issue 4, pp 923–928 | Cite as

Does Hip Resurfacing Require Larger Acetabular Cups Than Conventional THA?

  • Florian D. Naal
  • Michael S. H. Kain
  • Otmar Hersche
  • Urs Munzinger
  • Michael Leunig
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Hip resurfacing is femoral bone preserving, but there is controversy regarding the amount of bone removed at the acetabular side. We therefore compared the implanted acetabular cup sizes in primary THAs between two resurfacing devices and a conventional press-fit cup using a series of 2134 THAs (Allofit® cup 1643 hips, Durom® Hip Resurfacing 249 hips, and Birmingham Hip® Resurfacing 242 hips). The effects of patient demographics and cup position in the horizontal plane also were assessed. After controlling for gender, patients were matched for height, weight, body mass index, and age. The mean size for Allofit® cups was smaller than the sizes for Durom® and Birmingham Hip® Resurfacing cups in women (49.9 mm, 51.6 mm, 52.3 mm, respectively) and men (55.1 mm, 56.7 mm, 57.8 mm; respectively). Although patient height was associated with the implanted cup size, the cup position in the horizontal plane had no effect on the size used. Larger cups were used with hip resurfacing than for THA with a conventional press-fit cup. However, additional studies are needed to determine whether these small differences have any clinical implications in the long term. The association of cup size and patient height should be considered in future studies comparing component sizes among different implants.

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

Keywords

Femoral Component Acetabular Component Acetabular Bone Patient Height Acetabular Side 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Franco M. Impellizzeri for help with the study.

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.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Le Duff MJ. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: what have we learned? Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:149–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anglin C, Masri BA, Tonetti J, Hodgson AJ, Greidanus NV. Hip resurfacing femoral neck fracture influenced by valgus placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:71–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Amstutz HC. Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:735–741.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beaulé PE, Poitras P. Femoral component sizing and positioning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:163–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boscainos PJ, Kellett CF, Maury AC, Backstein D, Gross AE. Management of periacetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:159–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gross AE. Restoration of acetabular bone loss 2005. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(4 suppl 1):117–120.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gross AE, Duncan CP, Garbuz D, Mohamed EM. Revision arthroplasty of the acetabulum in association with loss of bone stock. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:57–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Incavo SJ, DiFazio FA, Howe JG. Cementless hemispheric acetabular components 2–4-year results. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:573–580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lachiewicz PF. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a skeptic’s view. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:86–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loughead JM, Starks I, Chesney D, Matthews JN, McCaskie AW, Holland JP. Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:31–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(7 suppl 3):66–71.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moonot P, Singh PJ, Cronin MD, Kalairajah YE, Kavanagh TG, Field RE. Birmingham hip resurfacing: is acetabular bone conserved? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:319–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murphy SB. Management of acetabular bone stock deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20 (4 suppl 2):85–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naal FD, Maffiuletti NA, Munzinger U, Hersche O. Sports after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35:705–711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naal FD, Schmied M, Munzinger U, Leunig M, Hersche O. Outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty in patients with developmental hip dysplasia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Aug 22. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmalzried TP. Why total hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 suppl 3):57–60.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shimmin AJ, Bare J, Back DL. Complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:187–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shimmin A, Beaulé PE, Campbell P. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:637–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, O’Rourke M. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1620–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Girard J, Roy AG. A randomised study comparing resection of acetabular bone at resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:997–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yew A, Jin ZM, Donn A, Morlock MM, Isaac G. Deformation of press-fitted metallic resurfacing cups Part 2: Finite element simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2006;220:311–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian D. Naal
    • 1
  • Michael S. H. Kain
    • 2
  • Otmar Hersche
    • 1
  • Urs Munzinger
    • 1
  • Michael Leunig
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgerySchulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.M.E. Müller Foundation of North America Hip Fellow at Schulthess ClinicZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.University of BerneBerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations