Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Socio-economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on patient employment after ten years

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

Abstract

Birmingham hip resurfacing is an attractive option for treatment of arthritis in young and active patients. The aim of this study was to assess the socio-economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on their employment and work intensity at ten years. A cohort of 90 consecutive patients with 100 Birmingham hip resurfacing, performed by single surgeon, were reviewed prospectively. The mean age was 51 years at surgery. Prospective review was undertaken from surgery until the tenth post-operative year. Overall, 90% of patients were in the same employment following surgery. Two patients who were employed before surgery were unemployed. Three patients had to decrease their work intensity but were still employed. Three out of five disabled patients regained employment following surgery. Seventy-eight patients were able to continue their employment with no or minimal restriction. Birmingham hip resurfacing allows the majority of patients to continue their same employment at similar intensity ten years following surgery.

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. Palmer KT, Milne P, Poole J, Cooper C, Coggon D (2005) Employment characteristics and job loss in patients awaiting surgery on the hip or knee. Occup Environ Med 62(1):54–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Waal JM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J (2005) The impact of non-traumatic hip and knee disorders on health-related quality of life as measured with the SF-36 or SF-12. A systematic review. Qual Life Res 14(4):1141–1155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Li X, Gignac MA, Anis AH (2006) The indirect cost of arthritis resulting from unemployment, reduced performance, and occupational changes while at work. Med Care 44:304–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li X, Gignac MA, Anis AH (2006) Workplace, psychological factors, and depressive symptoms among working people with arthritis: a longitudinal study. J Rheumatol 33(9):1849–1855

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organisation (2001) International classification of functioning and disability. WHO, Geneva

  6. Mobasheri R, Gidwani S, Rosson JW (2006) The effect of total hip replacement on employment status of patients under the age of 60 years. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88:131–133

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Newitt MC, Epstein WV, Masem M, Murray WR (1984) Work disability before and after total hip arthroplasty. Assessment of effectiveness in reducing disability. Arthritis Rheum 27:410–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnsson R, Persson BM (1986) Occupation after hip replacement for arthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 57:197–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen JS, Mathiesen B, Tvede N (1985) Occupational capacity after hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand 56:135–137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu SS, Della Valle AG, Besculides MC, Gaber LK, Memtsoudis SG (2009) Trends in mortality, complications, and demographics for primary hip arthroplasty in the United States. Int Orthop 33(3):643–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Matsushita I, Morita Y, Ito Y, Gejo R, Kimura T (2009). Activities of daily living after total hip arthroplasty. Is a 32-mm femoral head superior to a 26-mm head for improving daily activities? Int Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0909-8

  12. Tennent TD, Goddard NJ (2000) Current attitudes to total hip replacement in the younger patients: results of a national survey. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:33–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrisch SD, Mcgrath MS (2009) Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow up. Clin Orthop 467:66–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vail TP, Mine CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R (2006) Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favourably with THA at 2 years follow up. Clin Orthop 453:123–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC (2006) Treatment of the young and active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip: a five-to-seven year comparison of hybrid total hip arththroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg(Br) 88-B:592–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ (2007) Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2-to-9 year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res Jul 460:159–164

    Google Scholar 

  17. Zywiel MG, Marker DR, McGrath MS, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2009) Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels—a comparison of postoperative outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67(2):116–119

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fowble VA, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2009) A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty—patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 67(2):108–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reito A, Puolakka T, Pajamaki J (2010) Birmingham hip resurfacing: Five to eight year results. Intl Orthop. doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1066-9

  20. Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA (2008) Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomised study. Rev Chir Repartrice Appar Mot 94(4):361–367

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Narvani AA, Tsiridis E, Nwaboku HC, Bajekal RA (2006) Sporting activity following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Int J Sports Med Jun 27(6):505–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. No authors listed (2009) National Joint Registry for England and Wales 6th Annual Report. http//www.njrcentre.org.uk/. Accessed 14 November 2009

  23. Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP (2009) Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(12):1550–1554

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Saithna A, Ajayi OO, Davies ET (2008) The quality of Internet sites providing information relating to hip resurfacing. Surgeon 6(2):85–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

    Ibrahim A. Malek, Munawar Hashmi & James P. Holland

  2. 35 Campbell Drive, Windsor Quay, Cardiff, CF11 7QE, UK

    Ibrahim A. Malek

Authors
  1. Ibrahim A. Malek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Munawar Hashmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James P. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim A. Malek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malek, I.A., Hashmi, M. & Holland, J.P. Socio-economic impact of Birmingham hip resurfacing on patient employment after ten years. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 1467–1470 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1168-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1168-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation