Hip Resurfacing versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Comparing Standardized Outcomes
- 1.5k Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsHeterotopic Ossification Femoral Neck Fracture Revision Rate Adverse Event Rate High Revision Rate
We thank Denis Ako-Arrey DAA; MHA, MPH (McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada), and Monica Cepoiu-Martin MCM; MD (University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada) for their work reviewing abstracts and full-text articles for this systematic review. We also thank Gavin Steininger BSc, MASc, PhD (University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) for biostatistics expertise and assistance.
- 2.Almeida F, Pino L, Silvestre A, Gomar F. Mid- to long-term outcome of cementless total hip arthroplasty in younger patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2010;18:172–178.Google Scholar
- 9.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2011. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/annual-reports-2011. Accessed January 30, 2014
- 17.Bjorgul K, Novicoff WM, Andersen ST, Brevig K, Thu F, Wiig M, Ahlund O. No differences in outcomes between cemented and uncemented acetabular components after 12–14 years: results from a randomized controlled trial comparing Duraloc with Charnley cups. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010;11:37–45.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Canadian Institute for Health Information. The effect of bearing surface on early revisions following total hip arthroplasty. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/AiB_CJRR_Bearing-Surface-Revisions_July2013_EN.pdf. Accessed July 18, 2013.
- 24.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, England: CRD, University of York; 2009. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/Systematic_Reviews.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2014.
- 30.Cutts S, Datta A, Ayoub K, Rahman H, Lawrence T. Early failure modalities in hip resurfacing. Hip Int. 2005;15:155–158.Google Scholar
- 37.Descamps S, Bouillet B, Boisgard S, Levai JP. High incidence of loosening at 5-year follow-up of a cemented metal-on-metal acetabular component in THR. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2009;19:559–563.Google Scholar
- 44.Fowble VA, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:108–112.Google Scholar
- 47.Garellick G, Karrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register 2010 Annual Report. Available at: http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport-2010-2-eng.sflb.ashx. Accessed January 30, 2014.
- 59.International Society of Arthroplasty Registers. International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Report (revised February 2007). Available at: http://www.isarhome.org/statements. Accessed March 7, 2013.
- 64.Jiang J. Linear and Generalized Linear Mixed Models and Their Applications. New York, NY: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
- 69.Kim PR, Beaule PE, Laflamme GY, Dunbar M. Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 suppl 1):44–49.Google Scholar
- 78.Langdon IJ, Bannister GC. Cemented hip replacements in patients younger than 50 years: 16–24 year results. Hip Int. 1999;9:151–153.Google Scholar
- 83.MacIntosh C. Metal-on metal hip implants more likely to need replacement. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/metal-on-metal-hip-implants-more-likely-to-need-replacement-1.1330007. Accessed July 18, 2013.
- 85.Marulanda GA, Wilson MS, Edwards P, Raterman S. Early clinical experience with the use of the Birmingham hip resurfacing system. Orthopedics. 2008;31(12 suppl 2). pii: orthosupersite.com/view.asp?rID = 37184Google Scholar
- 92.Mella-Sousa M, Aguilar-Cortes F, Bocanegra E, Domecq G, Moleon M. Mid-term results in total hip arthroplasty with the basic noncemented hip prosthesis. Orthopedics. 2001;24):1053–1056.Google Scholar
- 93.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.Google Scholar
- 98.National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 8th Annual Report 2011. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/portals/0/documents/njr%208th%20annual%20report%202011.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2014.
- 102.New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry Twelve Year Report: January 1999 to December 2010. Available at: http://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NJR%2012%20Year%20Report%20Jan%2099%20-%20Dec%202010.pdf. Accessed February 5, 2014.
- 113.Radcliffe GS, Wilson JI, Ashford RU, De Boer PG. Hip replacement in patients younger than 65 years: results of the CLS prosthesis. Hip Int. 2003;13:133–141.Google Scholar
- 114.Ragab AA, Kraay MJ, Goldberg VM. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with insertion of an anatomically designed femoral component without cement for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis: a study with a minimum of six years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:210–208.Google Scholar
- 119.Saito S, Ishii T, Mori S, Hosaka K, Ootaki M, Tokuhashi Y. Long-term results of metasul metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2010;33. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100625-11
- 131.Theis JC, Beadel G. Changes in proximal femoral bone mineral density around a hydroxyapatite-coated hip joint arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:48–52.Google Scholar
- 144.Xu WD, Chen G, Li J, Xu L, Liang ZM. Metal-to-metal hip surface arthroplasty in 63 cases: a follow-up assessment. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res. 2008;12:4373–4376.Google Scholar