Functional outcomes for 2 years comparing hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty

Is there evidence to support an indication for surface replacement arthroplasty?: a systematic review

AIMS

Surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA), compared with traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA), is more expensive and carries unique concern related to metal ions production and hypersensitivity. Additionally, SRA is a more demanding procedure with a decreased margin for error compared with THA. To justify its use, SRA must demonstrate comparable component survival and some clinical advantages. We therefore performed a systematic literature review to investigate the differences in complication rates, patient-reported outcomes, stress shielding, and hip biomechanics between SRA and THA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE and EMBASE search engines. Inclusion criteria were level I to level III articles that reported clinical outcomes following primary SRA compared with THA. An initial search yielded 2503 potential articles for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included review articles, level IV or level V evidence, less than one year's follow-up, and previously reported data. In total, 27 articles with 4182 patients were available to analyze.

RESULTS

Fracture and infection rates were similar between SRA and THA, while dislocation rates were lower in SRA compared with THA. SRA demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcome scores with greater activity scores and a return to high-level activities compared with THA. SRA more reliably restored native hip joint biomechanics and decreased stress shielding of the proximal femur compared with THA.

CONCLUSION

In young active men with osteoarthritis, there is evidence that SRA offers some potential advantages over THA, including: improved return to high level activities and sport, restoration of native hip biomechanics, and decreased proximal femoral stress shielding. Continued long-term follow up is required to assess ultimate survivorship of SRA.

Early Clinically Relevant Improvement in Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes 1 Year Postsurgery in Patients with Knee and Hip Joint Arthroplasties

Objective To measure and identify the determinants of the outcomes after hip/knee arthroplasty (HA/KA) in patients with osteoarthritis during the first postsurgical year. Design In this prospective observational study, we evaluated the preoperative and postoperative (3, 6, and 12 months) outcomes of 626 patients who underwent HA (346 with median age 65 years, 59% female) or KA (280 with median age 66.5 years, 54% female) between 2008 and 2013. Generic and specific tools were used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and utility. Good outcome was defined as an improvement in WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) greater than or equal to the minimal important difference (MID). Regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship between preoperative and postoperative measures and evolution of WOMAC/good outcome. Results We observed an almost systematic improvement of all parameters for up to 12 months, but especially at the 3-month follow-up. The low number of comorbidities and the absence of postoperative complications were the common determinants of improvement of WOMAC total score after 12 months. Other parameters (background of the joint, preoperative function and length of hospital stay in KA group; place of discharge in HA group) affected the evolution of WOMAC scores. 87.09% of HA and 73.06% of KA patients experienced a good outcome. A small number of comorbidities, a worse preoperative function, a shortened hospital stay (KA only), and an absence of early postoperative complications (HA only) significantly predicted a good outcome. Conclusions Intermediate HRQoL following HA or KA improved quickly from preoperative levels for all instruments. More than 70% of patients achieved a good outcome defined as improved pain, stiffness and disability and the predictors are slightly close.

Has Metal-On-Metal Resurfacing Been a Cost-Effective Intervention for Health Care Providers?-A Registry Based Study

Background

Total hip replacement for end stage arthritis of the hip is currently the most common elective surgical procedure. In 2007 about 7.5% of UK implants were metal-on-metal joint resurfacing (MoM RS) procedures. Due to poor revision performance and concerns about metal debris, the use of RS had declined by 2012 to about a 1% share of UK hip procedures. This study estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal resurfacing (RS) procedures versus commonly employed total hip replacement (THR) methods.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We performed a cost-utility analysis using a well-established multi-state semi-Markov model from an NHS and personal and social services perspective. We used individual patient data (IPD) from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales on RS and THR surgery for osteoarthritis recorded from April 2003 to December 2012. We used flexible parametric modelling of NJR RS data to guide identification of patient subgroups and RS devices which delivered revision rates within the NICE 5% revision rate benchmark at 10 years. RS procedures overall have an estimated revision rate of 13% at 10 years, compared to <4% for most THR devices. New NICE guidance now recommends a revision rate benchmark of <5% at 10 years. 60% of RS implants in men and 2% in women were predicted to be within the revision benchmark. RS devices satisfying the 5% benchmark were unlikely to be cost-effective compared to THR at a standard UK willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. However, the probability of cost effectiveness was sensitive to small changes in the costs of devices or in quality of life or revision rate estimates.

Conclusion/Significance

Our results imply that in most cases RS has not been a cost-effective resource and should probably not be adopted by decision makers concerned with the cost effectiveness of hip replacement, or by patients concerned about the likelihood of revision, regardless of patient age or gender.

Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome

Aims

We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a review of registries that are full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Results

Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined, though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient reported outcome measures.

Conclusion

More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly important, the experience of established registries will be valuable in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the quality of data. Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of these data to monitor outcomes accurately. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.

Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

METHODS

Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method.

RESULTS

Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71-11.98]; p<0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2-7.5], p=0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21-4.58], p<0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25-2.78], p<0.001) after primary MoM HRA.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Metal ion levels and revision rates in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study

Metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings in hip surgery are related to increased blood levels of metal ions. The nature of the relationship between ion levels and failure is still not fully understood. This study compares three cohorts of patients, 120 patients in each cohort, treated with a hip resurfacing arthroplasty, grouped by brand and diameter of femoral component on average four years postoperatively: Birmingham Hip Resurfacing ≥50 mm, Durom resurfacing ≥50 mm and Durom resurfacing <50 mm. The median blood ion levels of cobalt and chromium were significantly lower in the cohort with the large Durom resurfacing than the other two cohorts (P<0.05). The large BHR and large Durom HRA had revision rates of 3.3%. The small Durom HRA had a revision rate of 8.3%. Elevated blood ion levels can indicate a failing MoM bearing. The large BHR and large Durom HRA have similar revision rates yet the large Durom HRA had significantly lower metal ion levels. When similar ion levels were reported for BHR and small Durom the latter had significantly higher revision rates. This suggests ion levels do not absolutely predict the rate of HRA failure. Since MoM generation of metal ions is not the sole reason of failure, regular clinical and radiographic follow-up should also be in place for patients with these joints.

Cost-utility of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared to conventional total hip replacement in young active patients with osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoM HRA) has emerged as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for younger active patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Birmingham hip resurfacing is the most common MoM HRA in Alberta, and is therefore compared with conventional THA.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the expected cost-utility of MoM HRA versus THA, in younger patients with OA, using a decision analytic model with a 15-year time horizon.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the expected cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of MoM HRA versus THA from a health care payer perspective. The base case considered patients with OA aged 50 years; men comprised 65.9% of the cohort. Sensitivity analyses evaluated cohort age, utility values, failure probabilities, and treatment costs. Data were derived from the Hip Improvement Project and the Hip and Knee Replacement Pilot databases in Alberta, the 2010 National Joint Replacement Registry of the Australian Orthopaedic Association, and the literature.

RESULTS

In the base case, THA was dominated by MoM HRA (incremental mean costs of -$583 and incremental mean QALYs of 0.079). In subgroup analyses, THA remained dominated when cohort age was 40 years instead of 50 years or when only men were assessed. THA dominated when the cohort age was 60 years or when only women were assessed. Results were sensitive to utilities, surgery costs, and MoM HRA revision and conversion probabilities. At a willingness-to-pay of Can $50,000/QALY, there was a 58% probability that MoM HRA is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that, on average, MoM HRA was preferred to THA for younger and male patients, but THA is still a reasonable option if the patient or clinician prefers given the small absolute differences between the options and the confidence ellipses around the cost-effectiveness estimates.

The Canadian Arthroplasty Society’s experience with hip resurfacing arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was twofold: first, to determine whether the five-year results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Canada justified the continued use of HRA; and second, to identify whether greater refinement of patient selection was warranted.

This was a retrospective cohort study that involved a review of 2773 HRAs performed between January 2001 and December 2008 at 11 Canadian centres. Cox’s proportional hazards models were used to analyse the predictors of failure of HRA. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to predict the cumulative survival rate at five years. The factors analysed included age, gender, body mass index, pre-operative hip pathology, surgeon’s experience, surgical approach, implant sizes and implant types. The most common modes of failure were also analysed.

The 2773 HRAs were undertaken in 2450 patients: 2127 in men and 646 in women. The mean age at operation was 50.5 years (sd 8.72; 18 to 82) and mean follow-up was 3.4 years (sd 2.1; 2.0 to 10.1). At the last follow-up a total of 101 HRAs (3.6%) required revision. Using revision for all causes of failure as the endpoint, Kaplan–Meier survival analysis showed a cumulative survival of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 96.1 to 96.9) at five years. With regard to gender, the five-year overall survival was 97.4% in men (95% CI 97.1 to 97.7) and 93.6% in women (95% CI 92.6 to 94.6). Female gender, smaller femoral components, specific implant types and a diagnosis of childhood hip problems were associated with higher rates of failure. The most common cause of failure was fracture of the femoral neck, followed by loosening of the femoral component.

The failure rates of HRA at five years justify the ongoing use of this technique in men. Female gender is an independent predictor of failure, and a higher failure rate at five years in women leads the authors to recommend this technique only in exceptional circumstances for women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1044–50.

Prospective study comparing functional outcomes and revision rates between hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: preliminary results for 2 years

There is a need of independent prospective studies about modern generation of hip resurfacing implants. The aim of this propective observational study was to compare the functional outcomes and revision rates with hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty and to present the preliminary results at 2 years. Patients included were recruited prospectively in the Partial Pelvic Replacement Hip Project by a single surgeon between January 2007 and January 2010. Patients were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (MDA) score and Devane Score. The end point of the study was reoperation for any cause related to the prosthesis. At a mean follow up of 38.6 months there were a total of 142 patients with hip resurfacing (group 1) [100 Durom^® (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA) and 42 Birmingham Hip Resurfacing^® (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)] and 278 patients with total hip arthroplasty (group 2). The results showed significantly greater gain of HHS, MDA and Devane score with hip resurfacing procedures. However, considering all the complications, the rate was significantly higher in group 16.4% vs 1.79% in group 2 (P<0.0001). In group 1 we observed 6 complications only concerned males with Durom^® implants. The follow up of this cohort is still on going and may deliver more information on the evolution of these results in time.

Hip resurfacing: a systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to take stock of hip resurfacing according to the principle of "evidence based medicine". Our main objective was to compare the rate of revision of resurfacing implants with survival limits set by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE) literature research databases up to July 2012 as recommended by the PRISMA statement. Data extraction focused on functional outcomes, complications and survival rates. The survival rates of implants were analysed according to the mean of the series in comparison to the NICE criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were identified and included 26,456 cases with an average of 499.17 ± 856.7 (range, 38-5000) cases per study. The median survival was 95.57 % ± 3.7 % (range, 84-100). The percentage of studies which satisfied the criteria set by NICE was 69.8 %. In terms of cumulative revision rates pondered by the number of implants, BHR®, Conserve Plus® and Cormet® showed the best results. The mean postoperative score was 91.2 ± 7.72 (range, 68.3-98.6). There was no statistically significant difference between implants in terms of functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the current evidence base, this review of the literature emphasises the importance of certain parameters that can improve the results of resurfacing. The type of implant seems to play an important role as does patient selection.