Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the component positioning of Birmingham Hip Resurfacings implanted through a posterolateral approach with those inserted via a direct lateral approach. Sixty-four hip resurfacings for osteoarthritis were carried out by a single surgeon: 23 through a direct lateral approach and 41 through a posterolateral approach. No significant differences in implant survival, Oxford Hip Scores or complications were found. The mean abduction angle for the acetabular component was lower (p < 0.007) with a posterior approach (mean: 37.5°; range 26–50°) than the lateral approach (mean: 43°; range 30–56°). There was no significant difference in stem orientation, either in flexion/extension or varus/valgus, between the two groups. This study demonstrates that components can be implanted in an acceptable orientation through either approach but that the posterior approach results in greater closure of the acetabular component.

Résumé

Le but de cette étude est de comparer la position de l’implant de resurfaçage de la hanche de type Birmingham, mis en place après abord postéro externe comparé à la voie directe latérale. 64 resurfaçages de hanche pour coxarthrose ont été réalisés par un seul chirurgien, 23 par voies latérales et 41 par voies postéro latérales. Il n’y a pas de différence significative dans la survie de l’implant, ni dans le score d’Oxford et les complications. La position du composant acétabulaire est beaucoup plus basse (p < 0.007) par abord postérieur (angle moyen 37.5° entre 26 à 50) que par voie latérale (angle moyen 43° entre 30 à 56). Il n’y a pas de différence significative dans l’orientation de la pièce fémorale ni en flexion, ni en extension et ni en varus ni en valgus. Cette étude démontre que les composants peuvent être implantés de façon acceptable par une des deux abords mais, l’abord postérieur entraîne une position plus basse de l’implant acétabulaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA (2004) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(1):28–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaulé PE, Campbell P, Shim P (2007) Femoral head blood flow during hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 456:148–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bradley GW, Freeman MA, Revell PA (1987) Resurfacing arthroplasty. Femoral head viability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 220:137–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(2):177–184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):185–190

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Forrest N, Welch A, Murray DA, Schweiger L, Hutchison J, Ashcroft GP (2006) Femoral head viability after Birmingham resurfacing hip arthroplasty: assessment with use of [18f] fluoride positron emission tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 3):84–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Freeman MA (1978) Some anatomical and mechanical considerations relevant to the surface replacement of the femoral head. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:19–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gautier E, Ganz K, Krügel N, Gill T, Ganz R (2000) Anatomy of the medial femoral circumflex artery and its surgical implications. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(5):679–683

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64(1):17–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan A, Yates P, Lovering A, Bannister GC, Spencer RF (2007) The effect of surgical approach on blood flow to the femoral head during resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(1):21–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ (2006) Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:34–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Minns RJ, Crawford RJ, Porter ML, Hardinge K (1993) Muscle strength following total hip arthroplasty. A comparison of trochanteric osteotomy and the direct lateral approach. J Arthroplasty 8(6):625–627

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. NJR Steering Committee. National Joint Registry for England and Wales—3rd annual clinical report. February 2006. The NJR Centre, Hemel Hempstead, UK

  14. Nötzli HP, Siebenrock KA, Hempfing A, Ramseier LE, Ganz R (2002) Perfusion of the femoral head during surgical dislocation of the hip. Monitoring by laser Doppler flowmetry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(2):300–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pajarinen J, Savolainen V, Tulikoura I, Lindahl J, Hirvensalo E (2003) Factors predisposing to dislocation of the Thompson hemiarthroplasty: 22 dislocations in 338 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 74(1):45–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pollard TCB, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC (2006) 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 88(5):592–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Steffen RT, Smith SR, Urban JPG, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Murray DW (2005) The effect of hip resurfacing on oxygen concentration in the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(11):1468–1474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stephenson PK, Freeman MA (1991) Exposure of the hip using a modified anterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty 6(2):137–145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sugamoto K, Ochi T, Takahashi Y, Tamura T, Matsuoka T (1998) Hemodynamic measurement in the femoral head using laser Doppler. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:138–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Treacy RBC, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wagner H (1978) Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 134:102–130

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest statement

No benefits in any form have been received from a commercial party directly or indirectly related to the subject of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Worcester Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way, Worcester, WR5 1DD, UK

    G. J. C. Myers, D. Morgan, C. W. McBryde & K. O’Dwyer

Authors
  1. G. J. C. Myers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. W. McBryde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. O’Dwyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. C. Myers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Myers, G.J.C., Morgan, D., McBryde, C.W. et al. Does surgical approach influence component positioning with Birmingham Hip Resurfacing?. International Orthopaedics (SICO 33, 59–63 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0469-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0469-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation