Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data

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

Abstract

Purpose

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity for treating young and active patients who have arthritis. There are two major data sources for assessing outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty: sample-based clinical trials and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty in terms of revision rate as reported in clinical studies and recorded by national arthroplasty registers.

Methods

A comprehensive literature research was performed from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and annual reports from national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide. Only publications from MEDLINE-listed journals were included. The revision rate was used as the primary outcome parameter. In order to allow for direct comparison of different data sets, calculation was based on revisions per 100 observed component years. For statistical analysis, confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

A total of 18,708 implants, equivalent to 106,565 observed component years, were analysed in the follow-up studies. The register reports contained 9,806 primary cases corresponding to 44,294 observed component years. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in revisions per 100 observed component years between the development team (0.27; CI: 0.14–0.40) and register data (0.74; CI: 0.72–0.76).

Conclusion

The BHR arthroplasty device shows good results in terms of revision rate in register data as well as in clinical studies. However, the excellent results reported by the development team are not reproducible by other surgeons. Based on the results of our study, we believe that comprehensive national arthroplasty registers are the most suitable tool for assessing hip arthroplasty revision rate.

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. Ollivere B et al (2010) The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: 5-year clinical and radiographic results from a District General Hospital. Int Orthop 34(5):631–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McMinn DJ et al (2011) Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop 35(2):231–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McMinn DJ et al (2008) Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing dysplasia component in severe acetabular insufficiency: a six- to 9.6-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(6):715–723

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mont MA et al (2006) Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(8):454–463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Böhler N (2011) Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 35(2):157–163, Epub 2010 Oct 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Labek G, Stoica CI, Boehler N (2008) Comparison of information in arthroplasty Registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90-B:288–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schuh R et al (2011) Validity of published outcome data concerning Anatomic Graduated Component total knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop. Apr 13. [Epub ahead of print]

  8. Aulakh TS et al (2010) Hip resurfacing and osteonecrosis: results from an independent hip resurfacing register. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(7):841–845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Back D, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A (2004) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(3):324–329

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baker RP et al (2011) A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):158–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bose VC, Baruah BD (2010) Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip for avascular necrosis of the femoral head: a minimum follow-up of four years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(7):922–928

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Carrothers AD et al (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(10):1344–1350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cooke NJ et al (2009) Bone density of the femoral neck following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Acta Orthop 80(6):660–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ (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 

  15. De Smet K (2005) Belgium experience with metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 36(2):203–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Giannini S (2007) Hip resurfacing mid term results of the last generation metal-on-metal devices. J Orthop Traumatol 8:202–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heilpern GN, Shah NN, Fordyce MJ (2008) Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(9):1137–1142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hing C, Back D, Shimmin A (2007) Hip resurfacing: indications, results, and conclusions. Instr Course Lect 56:171–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Khan M et al (2009) Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1044–1050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Langton DJ et al (2011) Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(2):164–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Madhu TS et al (2011) The Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis: an independent single surgeon’s experience at 7-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 26(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marulanda GA et al (2008) Early clinical experience with the use of the Birmingham hip resurfacing system. Orthopedics 31(12 Suppl 2)

  23. McAndrew AR et al (2007) A district general hospital’s experience of hip resurfacing. Hip Int 17(1):1–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McBryde CW et al (2008) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in developmental dysplasia: a case–control study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(6):708–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McBryde CW et al (2010) The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(1):105–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nishii T et al (2007) Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 22(2):176–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ollivere B et al (2009) Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8):1025–1030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pollard TC et al (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 

  29. Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamaki J (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: Five to eight year results. Int Orthop 35(8):1119–1124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Steffen RT et al (2008) The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(4):436–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Swank ML, Alkire MR (2009) Minimally invasive hip resurfacing compared to minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67(2):113–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Treacy R, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB (2005) 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

    Google Scholar 

  33. Treacy RB et al (2011) Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(1):27–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Witzleb WC et al (2009) In vivo wear rate of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty. A review of 10 retrieved components. J Arthroplasty 24(6):951–956

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mcbryde C, Revell MP, Thomas AM, Treacy RB, Pysent PB (2008) The Influence of Surgical Approach on Outcome im BHR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:920–926

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Malek I, Hashmi M, Holland JP (2010) Socio economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on patient employment after ten years. Int Orthop. Epub ahead of print (Nov. 27)

  37. Doll R, Hill AB (1956) Lung cancer and other causes of death in relation to smoking. A second report on the mortality of Brithish doctors. BMJ 10(5001):1071–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lilienfeld A, Lilienfeld DE (1980) Foundations of epidemiology, second edition. Oxford Univ. Press, p. 245

  39. Australian Orthopaedic Association (2010) Hip and knee arthroplasty annual report. Joint Repplacement Registry

  40. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (2009) Annual report. New Zealand Joint Arthroplasty Register

  41. Danish Hip Arthroplasty,Register (2009) Annual report http://www.dhr.dk/ENGLISH.htm

  42. Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (2009) Annual report. http://www.knee.dk, 2009

  43. Vail TP (2004) Hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19(4):236–244

    Google Scholar 

  44. McGrory B et al (2010) Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(5):306–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register (2008) Annual report. http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se

  46. Labek G et al (2009) High failure rate of the Duraloc Constrained Inlay. Acta Orthop 80(5):545–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Labek G et al (2011) Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Labek G et al (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 82(2):131–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Labek G, Stoica CI, Bohler N (2008) Comparison of the information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(3):288–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Labek G et al (2011) Revision rates after total ankle arthroplasty in sample-based clinical studies and national registries. Foot Ankle Int 32(8):740–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Reinhard Schuh

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Private Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Daniel Neumann

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria

    Rauend Rauf & Gerold Labek

  4. Department of Orthopaedics, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Jochen Hofstaetter

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Linz General Hospital, Linz, Austria

    Nikolaus Boehler

Authors
  1. Reinhard Schuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Neumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rauend Rauf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jochen Hofstaetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaus Boehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerold Labek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reinhard Schuh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schuh, R., Neumann, D., Rauf, R. et al. Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 36, 1349–1354 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1502-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1502-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation