Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Are the Benefits of Hip Resurfacing in Appropriate Patients? A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal ®

Abstract

Background

Hip arthritis is one of the major causes of disability worldwide. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) has emerged in recent years as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), but complications of HRA have limited the patient population to younger male patients with primary osteoarthritis and large hip anatomy. How the functional benefits of HRA in this population compare with those of THA is not entirely clear.

Questions/Purposes

The primary aim of this study was to determine whether there were differences in hip disability and patient satisfaction with surgery between these two groups at 2 years after surgery, using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and subjective measures of patient satisfaction. Additionally, we sought to determine whether there were differences in post-operative discharge disposition, revision rates, or adverse events.

Methods

We searched an institutional database to identify patients undergoing unilateral HRA or THA between January 2007 and July 2011 who met today’s recommended criteria for HRA: younger male patients with large-enough hip anatomy to make surgery viable (a femoral head of at least 48 mm in HRA patients and, in THA patients, an acetabular shell size of 54 mm, the minimum outer shell size that could accommodate a femoral head component of 48 mm; for matching purposes, acetabular shell size in THA was used as a surrogate for the femoral head size used in HRA). We used propensity score matching to control for potentially confounding pre-operative variables and administered the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) survey, including its subdomains, at the 2-year mark. We also assessed differences between groups in Lower Extremity Activity Scale scores, 12-item Short Form Health Survey results, and answers regarding satisfaction with surgery. We calculated minimal detectable change, minimum clinically important change, and substantial clinical benefit using anchor-based techniques for multiple outcome measures.

Results

There were 251 patients in each group. HRA patients scored significantly higher than THA patients on the 2-year HOOS sports and recreation (92 versus 87, respectively) and on rates of overall satisfaction (94% versus 89%, respectively). The HRA group also had a greater chance of achieving minimum clinically important change (18.75 points) in the HOOS sports and recreation subdomains than the THA group (97% versus 91%). No significant difference was found in 6-month adverse event rates. HRA patients also had a significantly shorter mean hospital stay, a higher rate of discharge to home, and a lower incidence of a “significant” limp after surgery.

Conclusion

HRA may provide a functional benefit in sports and recreation and greater satisfaction in patients who meet the current criteria for HRA. Because these benefits may be small, pre-operative counseling should focus on balancing the possible functional benefits against the longer-term risks associated with metal-on-metal bearings.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Joint Replacement Registry. Annual report 2018. Fifth AJRR Annual report on hip and knee arthroplasty data. Available from http://connect.ajrr.net/download-2018-annual-report.

  2. Beaton, DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14(2):109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. Can preoperative patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict meaningful improvement in function after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(1):149–157.

  4. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2017;7(5):541–546.

  5. Costa CR, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Mont MA. The outcomes of Cormet hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011;69 Suppl 1:S12–S15.

  6. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2147.

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

  8. Daniel J, Pradhan C, Ziaee H, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(10):1298–1306.

  9. Dekkers IA, van der Molen AJ. Propensity score matching as a substitute for randomized controlled trials on acute kidney injury after contrast media administration: a systematic review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;211(4):822–826.

  10. Della Valle CJ, Nunley RM, Raterman SJ, Barrack RL. Initial American experience with hip resurfacing following FDA approval. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(1):72–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dunbar MJ, Prasad V, Weerts B, Richardson G. Metal-on-metal hip surface replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Supple A):17–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-Y. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(5):963–974.

  13. Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, NGreidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The John Charnley Award: metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:318–325.

  14. Ghomrawi HMK, Dolan MM, Rutledge J, Alexiades MM. Recovery expectations of hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty: a matched pairs study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(12):1753–1757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Haddad FS, Konan S, Tahmassebi J. A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(5):617–622.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heintzbergen S, Kulin NA, Ijzerman MJ, et al. Cost-utility of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared to conventional total hip replacement in young active patients with osteoarthritis. Value Health. 2013;16(6):942–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Heinze G, Jüni P. An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(14):1704–1708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TVF. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 Suppl 1):50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The development and validation of a more discriminating functional hip score for research. HSS J. 2012;8(3):198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon, Y.-M., P. Thomas, B. Summer, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2009;28(4):444–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kwon YM, Ostlere SJ, McLardy-Smith P, Athanasou NA, Gill HS, Murray DW. “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(4):511–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA. Activités sportives après resurfaçage et prothèse totale de hanche : une étude prospective randomisée. Rev Chir Orthop. 2008;94(4):361–367.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, and Vendittoli PA. The John Charnley Award: the functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):326–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–1519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Leonard M, Magill M, Kiely P, Khayyat G. Radiographic comparison of cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2007;17(6):583–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: concepts and analytical approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:121–145.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Loughead JM, Starks I, Chesney D, Matthews JNS, McCaskie AW, Holland JP. Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88-B(1):31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(12):2432–2441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Malviya A, Holland JP. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 10-year Newcastle experience. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(4):477–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Matharu GS, McBryde CW, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB, Treacy RBC. The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(9):1172–1177.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996(329 Suppl):S89-S98. PMID: 8769326.

  33. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing arthroplasty: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006;6(4):1–57.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrich SD, McGrath MS. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(1):66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Murphy T P, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW, Mabry TM, Sierra RJ. Patients’ perceptionss of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2009;32(10):730–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90-B(7):847–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pollard TCB, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88-B(5):592–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B, et al. Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1985–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA, Hua J. Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement—early results. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Silva MKH, Heisel LC, Dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. The biomechanical results of total hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Ams. 2004;86-A(1):40–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Swedish National Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2004. 2005. Available from https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/shpr/r/Annual-report-2004-H1H6OIpol.pdf.

  44. Theodore BR. Methodological problems associated with the present conceptualization of the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit. Spine J. 2010;10(6):507–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with tha at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:123–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Vale L, Wyness L, McCormack K, McKenzie L, Brazzelli M, Stearns SC. A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(15):1–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. van der Waal JM, Terwee CB, van der Windt DAWM, Bouter LM, Dekker J. 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. 2005;14(4):1141–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int. 2006;16 Suppl 4:73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ward WG, Carter CJ, Barone M, Jinnah R. Primary total hip replacement versus hip resurfacing—hospital considerations. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011;69 Suppl 1:S95-S97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE. Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20:160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Alexander S. McLawhorn MD, MBA, Jason L. Blevins MD & Edwin P. Su MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 340 W 10th St #6200, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Leonard T. Buller MD

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Yuo Yu Lee MS

Authors
  1. Alexander S. McLawhorn MD, MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonard T. Buller MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason L. Blevins MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuo Yu Lee MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Edwin P. Su MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard T. Buller MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Alexander S. McLawhorn, MD, MBA; Leonard T. Buller, MD; Jason L. Blevins, MD; and Yuo-Yu Lee, MS, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Edwin P. Su, MD, reports receiving grants, personal fees as a consultant, and non-financial support from Smith & Nephew; personal fees as a consultant and non-financial support from United Orthopedic Corp.; non-financial support from OrthAlign Inc.; and ownership and investment interest in Insight Medical Systems.

Human/Animal Rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was waived from all patients for being included in this study.

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Additional information

Level of Evidence: Level III: Therapeutic Study

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 1224 kb)

ESM 5

(PDF 1225 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLawhorn, A.S., Buller, L.T., Blevins, J.L. et al. What Are the Benefits of Hip Resurfacing in Appropriate Patients? A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. HSS Jrnl 16 (Suppl 2), 316–326 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-019-09729-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-019-09729-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation