Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 7, pp 2217–2230

Hip Resurfacing versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Comparing Standardized Outcomes

  • Deborah A. Marshall
  • Karen Pykerman
  • Jason Werle
  • Diane Lorenzetti
  • Tracy Wasylak
  • Tom Noseworthy
  • Donald A. Dick
  • Greg O’Connor
  • Aish Sundaram
  • Sanne Heintzbergen
  • Cy Frank
Survey

Abstract

Background

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.

Questions/purposes

We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).

Results

The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95–3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2–8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1–11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7–7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4–11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3–2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2–4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6–1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.

Conclusions

Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Supplementary material

11999_2014_3556_MOESM1_ESM.doc (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 46 kb)
11999_2014_3556_MOESM2_ESM.tif (4.5 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 4645 kb)
11999_2014_3556_MOESM3_ESM.tif (3 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 3070 kb)
11999_2014_3556_MOESM4_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 19 kb)
11999_2014_3556_MOESM5_ESM.tif (3.1 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 3207 kb)

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah A. Marshall
    • 1
  • Karen Pykerman
    • 1
  • Jason Werle
    • 2
  • Diane Lorenzetti
    • 1
  • Tracy Wasylak
    • 3
  • Tom Noseworthy
    • 4
    • 10
  • Donald A. Dick
    • 5
  • Greg O’Connor
    • 6
  • Aish Sundaram
    • 6
  • Sanne Heintzbergen
    • 7
  • Cy Frank
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Community Health SciencesUniversity of Calgary, Health Research Innovation CentreCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Division of Joint Reconstruction, Department of SurgeryUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  3. 3.Strategic Clinical Networks & Clinical Care Pathways, Alberta Health ServicesCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.Bone & Joint Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health ServicesEdmontonCanada
  6. 6.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  7. 7.Health Technology & Service ResearchUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  8. 8.Alberta Innovates Health SolutionsCalgaryCanada
  9. 9.Alberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteCalgaryCanada
  10. 10.Alberta Health ServicesCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations