Hip resurfacing with the Biomet Hybrid ReCap-Magnum system: 7-year results

Blood Metal Ion Levels After Hip Resurfacing: A Comparison of 2 Different Implants

Background

While hip resurfacing arthroplasty has been shown to be an effective prosthetic solution for end-stage osteoarthritis, prior studies have also reported an increasing concern regarding blood metal ion levels following the use of metal-on-metal articulations. The purpose of this study was to compare early and midterm blood metal ion levels to functional outcomes and implant survivorship for patients treated with the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant system and the ReCap Magnum.

Methods

A retrospective review identified 104 patients who underwent 134 hip resurfacing arthroplasties using BHR (n = 67) and ReCap (n = 67) at a single institution between 2006 and 2018. ReCap and BHR patients were matched 1:1 by sex, femoral head and acetabular cup sizes, age, and year of surgery. The primary outcome of interest was cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) ion levels.

Results

The ReCap cohort had lower median metal ion levels compared to the BHR cohort at 1-2 y (Co: 1.5 vs 1.9 parts per billion [ppb], P = .018; Cr: 1.3 vs 2.8 ppb, P = .008) and 3-5 y (Co: 1.1 vs 1.9 ppb, P = .001; Cr: 1.2 vs 2.2 ppb, P = .003) after surgery. Correlation analysis showed no significant associations between Co and Cr ion levels and pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes. Indications for revision differed between groups. Three BHR hips were revised due to adverse reactions to metal debris, whereas 2 ReCap hips required revisions: one for instability and another for periprosthetic fracture.

Conclusions

BHR patients had higher metal ion levels than ReCap patients at 1-2 and 3-5 y after surgery, though these metal levels are still low and in line with prior studies. Indications for revision differed between patients treated with BHR and ReCap. Surgeons should be aware of these outcomes when counseling patients regarding these metal-on-metal articulations.

Is a cementless fixation of the femoral component suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) typically uses a hybrid design (cemented femoral component and cementless acetabular shell) but has recently been performed with fully cementless components. There is a paucity of information on the clinical performance of these cementless designs.

METHODS

The UCLA clinical scores, SF-12 quality of life scores, complication rates, survivorship and radiographic signs of loosening or gross stress shielding of 39 hips (39 male patients) implanted with cementless HRA were compared with those of 40 hips (37 male patients) implanted with hybrid HRA during the same time frame.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in postoperative clinical and quality of life scores, complication rates, or radiographic signs of loosening between the 2 groups. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 97.2% for the cementless group and 100% for the hybrid group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.3694). There were no femoral component failures in any of the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up of 6 years, there is no tangible difference between the performance of cementless HRA compared to hybrid HRA. The absence of learning curve associated with this device and the potential for better preservation of femoral neck bone mineral density suggest that this technology is well suited for young patients with good bone quality seeking to resume an active lifestyle including high-impact activities.

Femoral Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: An 11-Year Retrospective Comparison of 4013 Cases

BACKGROUND

The optimal femoral fixation method remains unclear. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (739 hips) with cemented femoral components; group 2 (3274 hips) with uncemented femoral components.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, and radiographic measurements. Groups were consecutive, so cemented cases had longer follow-up. However, all patients from both groups were at least 2 years out from surgery. Two-year clinical and radiographic data were compared. Longer-term comparison data as well as Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves specifically focusing on femoral failure modes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier 10-year implant survivorship using nontraumatic femoral failure as an end point was 98.9% for the cemented and 100% for the uncemented femoral component. The uncemented, group 2 cases showed a significantly lower raw failure rate (1.1% vs 4.6%), 2-year failure rate (0.8% vs 2.8%), 2-year femoral failure rate (0.4% vs 0.9%), and a lower combined rate of femoral complications and failures (0.6% vs 1.8%). In cases that did not fail, patient mean clinical scores, pain scores, and combined range of motion were all significantly better for group 2.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that in the fully porous-coated ReCap device, uncemented femoral fixation is superior to cemented fixation at 11 years follow-up (0.0% vs 1.1% late femoral loosening) in this single-surgeon cohort. Early femoral fractures also reduced from 0.8% to 0.3%, but this may be partially or completely due to a new bone density management program. This study demonstrates better femoral implant survivorship for the uncemented device compared to the cemented femoral resurfacing component for this implant design.

Computer-assisted Navigation in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Case Study utilizing the ReCap Femoral Resurfacing System

Introduction:

The ReCap Femoral Resurfacing System has been associated with increased cases of revision surgery when compared to other hip resurfacing systems. However, computer-assisted navigation may have the potential to reduce the risk of post-operative complications by providing more accurate intraoperative measurements for acetabular component positioning.

Case Report:

The present case describes an active 46-year-old male presenting with severe osteoarthritis of the right hip who elected to undergo a ReCap resurfacing arthroplasty with navigation. Results demonstrated accurate acetabular component position and leg length measurements to within <1° and 1mm of standard radiographic measurements.

Conclusion:

These findings are the first to describe the use of navigation with the ReCap system and provide encouraging results for further clinical evaluation.

10-year results of ReCap hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a non-designer case series

INTRODUCTION

We present the 10-year results of the ReCap Magnum HRA system in a consecutive single surgeon's series from a non-designer centre.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) was performed in active males under 65 years and in pre-menopausal females with adequate bone density proven by a DEXA scan. Clinical follow-up; annual Oxford hip scoring, UCLA scoring and whole blood metal ion level measurement. Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine survivorship with revision as the end point. Radiographs were analysed for; acetabular inclination, notching, neck thinning and change in implant position. 72 HRAs were performed in 66 patients with a mean age of 45.7 years. The mean follow-up was 10.63 ± 0.54 years (range 10-11.75 years).

RESULTS

The survivorship of the cohort at minimum 10 years was 97.22% (95% confidence interval 94.14-99.01). There was a significant improvement in the Oxford Hip Score from 15.77 ± 4.33 to 45.67 ± 4.43 (p < 0.001) and the UCLA score from 3.14 ± 0.74 to 7.07 ± 1.16 (p < 0.001). Mean whole blood cobalt and chromium levels were 28.83 ± 8.42 nmol/l and 39.93 ± 9.64 nmol/l respectively. There were 2 revisions, due to avascular necrosis and implant failure. In our series the implant has performed well with <1% failure per year. We did not note any difference between the genders, since all the females in our series had been screened for osteopenia using a DEXA scan. All our patients returned to an active lifestyle which was maintained at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Strict selection criteria and a well-designed implant result in good long-term functional and radiological results with hip resurfacing.

Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint

Objectives

The high revision rates of the DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) and the DePuy ASR XL (the total hip arthroplasty (THA) version) have led to questions over the viability of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip joints. Some designs of MoM hip joint do, however, have reasonable mid-term performance when implanted in appropriate patients. Investigations into the reasons for implant failure are important to offer help with the choice of implants and direction for future implant designs. One way to assess the performance of explanted hip prostheses is to measure the wear (in terms of material loss) on the joint surfaces.

Methods

In this study, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the wear on five failed cementless Biomet Magnum/ReCap/ Taperloc large head MoM THAs, along with one Biomet ReCap resurfacing joint. Surface roughness measurements were also taken. The reason for revision of these implants was pain and/or adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and/or elevated blood metal ion levels.

Results

The mean wear rate of the articulating surfaces of the heads and acetabular components of all six joints tested was found to be 6.1 mm³/year (4.1 to 7.6). The mean wear rate of the femoral head tapers of the five THAs was 0.054 mm³/year (0.021 to 0.128) with a mean maximum wear depth of 5.7 µm (4.3 to 8.5).

Conclusion

Although the taper wear was relatively low, the wear from the articulating surfaces was sufficient to provide concern and was potentially large enough to have been the cause of failure of these joints. The authors believe that patients implanted with the ReCap system, whether the resurfacing prosthesis or the THA, should be closely monitored.

Cite this article: S. C. Scholes, B. J. Hunt, V. M. Richardson, D. J. Langton, E. Smith, T. J. Joyce. Explant analysis of the Biomet Magnum/ReCap metal-on-metal hip joint. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:113–122. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.62.BJR-2016-0130.R2.

Comparison of Cemented and Bone Ingrowth Fixation Methods in Hip Resurfacing for Osteonecrosis

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head has yet to be elucidated. To evaluate the role of femoral fixation techniques in hip resurfacing, we present a comparison of the results for 2 consecutive groups: group 1 (75 hips) received hybrid hip resurfacing implants with a cemented femoral component; group 2 (103 hips) received uncemented femoral components. Both groups received uncemented acetabular components.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed our clinical database to compare failures, reoperations, complications, clinical results, metal ion test results, and X-ray measurements. Using consecutive groups caused time interval bias, so we required all group 2 patients to be at least 2 years out from surgery; we compared results from 2 years and final follow-up.

RESULTS

Patient groups matched similarly in age, body mass index, and percent female. Despite similar demographics, the uncemented, group 2 cases showed a lower raw failure rate (0% vs 16%; P < .0001), a lower 2-year failure rate (0% vs 7%; P = .04), and a superior 8-year implant survivorship (100% vs 91%; log-rank P = .0028; Wilcoxon P = .0026). In cases that did not fail, patient clinical (P = .05), activity (P = .02), and pain scores (P = .03), as well as acetabular component position (P < .0001), all improved in group 2, suggesting advancements in surgical management. There were no cases of adverse wear-related failure in either group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices.

Poor 10-year survivorship of hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Background and purpose - In a previous registry report, short-term implant survival of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in Finland was found to be comparable to that of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Since then, it has become evident that adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMDs) may also be associated with HRA, not only with large-diameter head metal-on-metal THA. The aim of the study was to assess medium- to long-term survivorship of HRA based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register (FAR). Patients and methods - 5,068 HRAs performed during the period 2001-2013 in Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, femoral head size, and hospital volume was used to analyze implant survival of HRA devices with revision for any reason as endpoint. The reference group consisted of 6,485 uncemented Vision/Bimetric and ABG II THAs performed in Finland over the same time period. Results - The 8-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, was 93% (CI: 92-94) for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), 86% (CI: 78-94) for Corin, 91% (CI: 89-94) for ReCap, 92% (CI: 89-96) for Durom, and was 72% (CI: 69-76) for the Articular Surface Replacement (ASR). The 10-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for reference THAs was 92% (CI: 91-92) and for all HRAs it was 86% (CI: 84-87%). Female HRA patients had about twice the revision risk of male patients. ASR had an inferior outcome: the revision risk was 4-fold higher than for BHR, the reference implant. Interpretation - The 10-year implant survival of HRAs is 86% in Finland. According to new recommendations from NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), an HRA/THA should have a revision rate of 5% or less at 10 years. None of the HRAs studied achieved this goal.

Revision rates for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty - a systematic review

PURPOSE

To compare revision rates of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing (HRS) and MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as the primary causes for revisions.

METHODS

The PubMed database was queried for potentially relevant articles addressing MoMTHA and MoMHRS, a total of 51 articles were included.

RESULTS

The review includes a total number of 5,399 MoMHRS and 3,244 THA prosthesis and the reasons for prosthesis failure were divided into 7 categories and the main causes discussed. The overall MoMTHA revision rate was 4.7% after 6.9 years. MoMHRS revision rate was 5.9% after 5.7 years. The odds ratio was 1.25 (1.03:1.53) 95% CI (p = 0.03) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).The studies of hip prostheses were separated into 2 categories of short- and long-term (more or less than 5 years). Short-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 4.5% after 4.8 years, and for MoMHRS 4.0% after 4.2 years. The odds ratio was 1.09 (0.82:1.43) 95% CI (0 = 0.56) (MoMTHA vs. MoMHRS). Long-term revision rate for MoMTHA was 5.2% after 7.7 years and 8.2% after 7.6 years for MoMHRS. The odds ratio was 1.58 (1.53:1.96) 95% CI (p = 0.0001) (MoMHRS vs. MoMTHA).Revision causes were divided into 7 main categories. The most common cause for revision for both MoMTHA and MoMHRS was loosening 47.6% vs. 37.7%, fracture (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 19.62%), metal reactions (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 26.92%) infection (MoMTHA 12.08%; MoMHRS 6.54%), instability (MoMTHA 9.13%; MoMHRS 2.69%), manufacturer defect 6.73% for MoMTHA and nonreported for MoMHRS, and miscellaneous (MoMTHA 7.69%; MoMHRS 6.54%) was stated.

INTERPRETATION

The comparison of MoMHRS and MoMTHA revision rates showed no difference in the short term, however in the longer term, the revision rate of MoMHRS was significantly higher than for MoMTHA. The linear increase in revision rate of MoMHRS may indicate a progression in failure.

Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases

BACKGROUND

Arthritis secondary to developmental hip dysplasia often mandates implant surgery at a relatively young age. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), compared with standard stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA), affords a more active lifestyle including extreme-motion activities but stimulates concerns pertaining to implant failure.

METHODS

We addressed the primary modes of failure through a series of interventions, including a new guideline for achieving proper implant alignment through intraoperative x-rays. We then compared two sequential cohorts in a single-surgeon practice: patients with developmental dysplasia who underwent HRA before (Group 1; 121 hips in 105 patients) and after (Group 2; 242 hips in 210 patients) June 2008, at which time the four interventions were all in place.

RESULTS

Implants in Group 2 failed less frequently within two years (0.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.002) and were more likely to have projected seven-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship (99 % vs. 89 %, p < 0.0001 by log-rank test). Patients in Group 2 were more likely to have normal metal ion levels (77 % vs. 56 %, p = 0.0008) and optimum metal ion levels (99 % vs. 86 %, p = 0.0008). Patients in Group 2 also benefited from a 19-min decrease in mean operation time, a 45 % decrease in mean estimated blood loss, and a 0.9-day decrease in mean hospital stay (p < 0.0001 in each instance).

CONCLUSIONS

We believe the interventions reported here, combined with sufficient surgeon experience and properly designed implants, afford patients with mild developmental dysplasia a more active lifestyle with favorable implant survival.

Outcomes after revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty

We report the results of 58 hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRA) revised by a single surgeon with an average of 5.2±2.6 years follow-up. The four most common causes for revision were acetabular component loosening, femoral neck fracture, femoral component loosening, and adverse wear related failure (AWRF). In 95% of cases (55/58), the revision bearing was a large metal-on-metal type including all seven AWRF cases; three cases were revised to ceramic-on-polyethylene. There were two repeat revisions due to acetabular component loosening. Revision of AWRF had an excellent outcome using limited debridement and a stable large metal bearing placed in the correct position. The only problematic group was the one revised for acetabular loosening in which 2/16 (6%) required repeat revision for failure of acetabular fixation.

Acetabular component thickness does not affect mid-term clinical results in hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

The benefits of using thin acetabular components for hip resurfacing have been shown in terms of bone conservation, but there currently are little data available in the literature addressing the mid-term clinical results of these devices.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We aimed to determine whether thinner acetabular components altered mid-term postoperative clinical scores, complication rates, survivorship, radiographic appearance, and metal ion levels.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-one patients with unilateral disease received a 5-mm thick acetabular shell and 223 received a 3.5-mm shell. The femoral component implanted in both groups was identical. We compared clinical scores, complication rates, survivorship, radiographic results, and ion levels between these two groups.

RESULTS

UCLA hip scores were similar (pain, p = 0.0976; walking, p = 0.9571; function, p = 0.9316; activity, p = 0.2085). Complications were higher in the 5-mm group (6.4% versus 1.8%, p = 0.0431). Both groups were similar regarding survivorship (p = 0.3181), cup radiolucency at 5 years (p = 0.107), and metal ion levels (cobalt p = 0.404, chromium p = 0.250).

CONCLUSIONS

With comparable mid-term clinical results, there is no tangible reason to abstain from using the 3.5-mm acetabular component.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

High incidence of pseudotumours after hip resurfacing even in low risk patients; results from an intensified MRI screening protocol

We intensified our screening protocol for the presence of pseudotumours in a consecutive series of patients with a hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), to establish whether we should be alert to the presence of 'silent' pseudotumours. Patients categorised with high risk (11 hips) and low risk (10 hips) for pseudotumour development and a control group (23 hips) were screened with metal artefact reduction sequence (MARS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Anderson classification to grade any metal-on-metal (MoM) disease present on MARS-MRI images was used. In 15 out of 44 MRI scans pseudotumours were observed (34.1%), of which six were graded with mild (13.6%), eight with moderate (18.2%) and one with severe MoM disease (2.3%). Twelve pseudotumours were present in asymptomatic patients (27.3%). Metal ion levels were normal in 80% of the MARS-MRI screened patients. As a consequence of our intensified screening protocol, one patient was revised for pseudotumour formation and another patient was scheduled for revision. Silent pseudotumours were observed in all three groups. Before our intensified screening protocol was initiated, no pseudotumours were encountered in our cohort of 289 HRAs. We concluded that clinical outcomes and plain radiographs for screening MoM patients underestimates the presence of pseudotumours in MoM patients. The true clinical relevance of these pseudotumours is still unclear.

Adverse reaction to metal debris after ReCap-M2A-Magnum large-diameter-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The clinical findings of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following large-diameter-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (LDH MoM THA) may include periarticular fluid collections, soft tissue masses, and gluteal muscle necrosis. The ReCap-M2a-Magnum LDH MoM THA was the most commonly used hip device at our institution from 2005 to 2012. We assessed the prevalence of and risk factors for ARMD with this device.

METHODS

74 patients (80 hips) had a ReCap-M2a-Magnum LDH MoM THA during the period August 2005 to December 2006. These patients were studied with hip MRI, serum chromium and cobalt ion measurements, the Oxford hip score questionnaire, and by clinical examination. The prevalence of ARMD was recorded and risk factors for ARMD were assessed using logistic regression models. The mean follow-up time was 6.0 (5.5-6.7) years.

RESULTS

A revision operation due to ARMD was needed by 3 of 74 patients (3 of 80 hips). 8 additional patients (8 hips) had definite ARMD, but revision was not performed. 29 patients (32 hips) were considered to have a probable or possible ARMD. Altogether, 43 of 80 hips had a definite, probable, or possible ARMD and 34 patients (37 hips) were considered not to have ARMD. In 46 of 78 hips, MRI revealed a soft tissue mass or a collection of fluid (of any size). The symptoms clicking in the hip, local hip swelling, and a feeling of subluxation were associated with ARMD.

INTERPRETATION

ARMD is common after ReCap-M2a-Magnum total hip arthroplasty, and we discourage the use of this device. Asymptomatic patients with a small fluid collection on MRI may not need instant revision surgery but must be followed up closely.

Impact of implant size on cement filling in hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Larger proportions of cement within femoral resurfacing implants might result in thermal bone necrosis. We postulate that smaller components are filled with proportionally more cement, causing an elevated failure rate. A total of 19 femoral heads were fitted with polymeric replicas of ReCap (Biomet) resurfacing components fixed with low-viscosity cement. Two specimens were used for each even size between 40 and 56 mm and one for size 58 mm. All specimens were imaged with computed tomography, and the cement thickness and bone density were analyzed. The average cement mantle thickness was 2.63 mm and was not correlated with the implant size. However, specimen with low bone density had thicker cement mantles regardless of size. The average filling index was 36.65% and was correlated to both implant size and bone density. Smaller implants and specimens with lower bone density contained proportionally more cement than larger implants. According to a linear regression model, bone density but not implant size influenced cement thickness. However, both implant size and bone density had a significant impact on the filling index. Large proportions of cement within the resurfacing head have the potential to generate thermal bone necrosis and implant failure. When considering hip resurfacing in patients with a small femoral head and/or osteoporotic bone, extra care should be taken to avoid thermal bone necrosis, and alternative cementing techniques or even cementless implants should be considered. This study should help delimiting the indications for hip resurfacing and to choose an optimal cementing technique taking implant size into account.

A safe zone for acetabular component position in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: winner of the 2012 HAP PAUL award

A safe zone for acetabular component positioning in hip resurfacing (RAIL: Relative Acetabular Inclination Limit) was calculated based on implant size and acetabular inclination angle (AIA). For AIA below the RAIL, there were no adverse wear failures or dislocations, and only 1% of cases with ion levels above 10 μg/L. Other than high inclination angle and small bearing size, female gender was the only other factor that correlated with high ion levels in the multivariate analysis. Seven hundred sixty-one hip resurfacing cases are included in this study. The UCLA activity score, femoral shaft angle, body mass index, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, combined range of motion, diagnosis, age, gender, implant brand, AIA, bearing size, and duration of implantation were analyzed to determine the potential risk factors for elevated metal ion levels. These findings apply to sub hemispheric metal-on-metal bearings with similar coverage arcs as the Biomet and Corin hip resurfacing brands. Additional problems may occur when these bearings are connected with trunions on stems for total hip arthroplasty.

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.

Hip resurfacing in a district general hospital: 6-year clinical results using the ReCap hip resurfacing system

BACKGROUND

The purpose of our study was to prospectively report the clinical results of 280 consecutive hips (240 patients) who received a ReCap Hip Resurfacing System implant (Biomet Inc., Warsaw, USA) in a single district general hospital. Literature reports a large variation in clinical results between different resurfacing designs and published results using this particular design are scarce.

METHODS

Mean follow up was 3.3 years (1.0 to 6.3) and four patients were lost to follow-up. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage hip osteoarthritis, their mean age was 54 years and 76.4% of all patients were male.

RESULTS

There were 16 revisions and four patients reported a Harris Hip Score <70 points at their latest follow up. There were no pending revisions. Kaplan-Meier implant survival probability, with revision for any reason as endpoint, was 93.5% at six years follow-up (95%-CI: 88.8-95.3). There were no revisions for Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris (ARMD) and no indications of ARMD in symptomatic non-revised patients, although diagnostics were limited to ultrasound scans.

CONCLUSIONS

This independent series confirms that hip resurfacing is a demanding procedure, and that implant survival of the ReCap hip resurfacing system is on a critical level in our series. In non-revised patients, reported outcomes are generally excellent.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00603395.