Hip Resurfacing: a 40-Year Perspective
Saving bone by resurfacing the femoral head is not a new concept and the appeal for this type of hip replacement has remained despite the difficulties to find a bearing material suitable for this procedure.
In this article, the unique experience of a surgeon who has been performing hip resurfacing since its early development is presented, along with a comparative analysis of the performance of successive designs.
The overall 10-year Kaplan–Meier survivorship of the early designs with polyethylene bearings did not exceed 62% while that of the current Conserve®Plus metal-on-metal hybrid design implanted with second generation surgical technique is in excess of 92%. Further exceptional, in the 10-year survivorship, 99.7% has been achieved with femoral size of 46 mm and good bone quality. Cementless acetabular components provide better enduring fixation than cemented designs.
Metal-on-metal is currently and fortunately the only highly successful bearing material that can combine low wear rates and the manufacturing of a thin acetabular component to preserve bone and still accommodate the large femoral head of a hip resurfacing. The adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) associated with metal-on-metal devices are not a bearing material issue per se but one of the device design and surgical technique. Almost all of ALTR and the rare events of systemic toxicity are due to abnormal wear patterns which can be prevented by proper acetabular component design and precise socket orientation in both the coronal and sagittal planes. Further improvements of the long-term durability with hip resurfacing can be anticipated with the use of recently developed trabecular bone-like tantalum or titanium porous coatings and with proper training of the surgeons interested in performing hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
Keywordship resurfacing long term survivorship history
- 3.Amstutz, H., and Le Duff, M.: Background of metal-on-metal resurfacing. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H], 220(2): 85–94, 2006.Google Scholar
- 4.Amstutz, H., and Le Duff, M.: Evolution of hip resurfacing. In Hip Resurfacing: Principles, Indications, Technique and Results, pp. 1–15. Edited by Amstutz, H. C., 1–15, Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2008.Google Scholar
- 6.Amstutz, H. C.: Surface replacement arthroplasty. In Total Hip Arthroplasty, pp. 295–332. Edited by Amstutz, H. C., 295–332, New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1991.Google Scholar
- 7.Amstutz, H. C.; Campbell, P.; Kossovsky, N.; and Clarke, I. C.: Mechanism and clinical significance of wear debris-induced osteolysis. Clin Orthop, (276): 7–18, 1992.Google Scholar
- 8.Amstutz, H. C.; Campbell, P.; Nasser, S.; and Kossovsky, N.: Modes of failure of surface replacements. In Hip Arthroplasty, pp. 507–534. Edited by Amstutz, H. C., 507–534, New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1991.Google Scholar
- 9.Amstutz, H. C.; Clarke, I. C.; Christie, J.; and Graff-Radford, A.: Total hip articular replacement by internal eccentric shells: the tharies approach to total surface replacement arthroplasty. Clin Orthop, (128): 261–84., 1977.Google Scholar
- 10.Amstutz, H. C.; Sparling, E. A.; Grigoris, P.; Campbell, P. A.; and Dorey, F. J.: Surface replacement: the hip replacement of the future. Hip International, 8(4): 187–207, 1998.Google Scholar
- 16.Campbell, P.; Mirra, J.; and Amstutz, H. C.: Viability of femoral heads treated with resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 15(1):120–2, 2000.Google Scholar
- 25.Jolley, M.; Salvati, E.; and Brown, G.: Early Results and Complications of Surface Replacement of the Hip. J Bone Joint Surg [AM], 64(3): 366–377, 1982.Google Scholar
- 28.Langton, D.; Sprowson, A.; Joyce, T.; Reed, M.; Carluke, I.; Partington, P.; and Nargol, A.: Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties. JBJS Br, 91(10): 1287–95, 2009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Maloney, W. J., and Smith, R. L.: Periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty: the role of particulate wear debris. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 77A(September): 1448–1461, 1995.Google Scholar
- 33.Murray, W. R., and Van Meter, J. W.: Surface replacement hip arthroplasty: results of the first seventy-four consecutive cases at the University of California, San Francisco. Hip: 156–66, 1982.Google Scholar
- 37.Pazzaglia, U.; Apostoli, P.; Congiu, T.; Catalani, S.; Marchese, M.; and Zarattini, G.: Cobalt, chromium and molybdenum ions kinetics in the human body: data gained from a total hip replacement with massive third body wear of the head and neuropathy by cobalt intoxication. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg., 131(9): 1299–308, 2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Schmalzried, T.: Metal–metal bearing surfaces in hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics., 32(9): E-publication, 2009.Google Scholar
- 41.Schmalzried, T. P.; Fowble, V. A.; and Amstutz, H. C.: The fate of pelvic osteolysis after reoperation. No recurrence with lesional treatment. Clin Orthop, (350): 128–37, 1998.Google Scholar
- 42.Smith-Petersen, M.: Evolution of mould arthroplasty of the hip joint. J. Bone Joint Surg, 30 B: 59–75, 1948.Google Scholar
- 45.Tower, S.: Arthroprosthetic Cobaltism: Neurological and Cardiac Manifestations in Two Patients with Metal-on-Metal Arthroplasty: A Case Report. J Bone Joint Surg Am., 92(7): 2847–51, 2010.Google Scholar
- 48.Wera, G.; Gillespie, R.; Petty, C.; Petersilge, W.; Kraay, M.; and Goldberg, V.: Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 39(8): E78-83, 2010.Google Scholar