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

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up and Sub-Analysis of Navigation vs Non-Navigation for Hip Resurfacing

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to report the short-term clinical outcomes of hip resurfacing with navigation and the impact on accuracy of acetabular implant placement in both the frontal and sagittal planes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were retrospectively analyzed for patients who received hip resurfacing between 2010 and 2021. Eligible patients had postoperative radiographs and completed a minimum 2-year follow-up questionnaire for the following patient-reported outcomes: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, satisfaction, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR). Hips were propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio based on the use of navigation, age, and body mass index. The percentage of hips that met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS and VAS score was noted. Component placement analysis was conducted based on the safe zones defined by Lewinnek and Callanan and the Relative Acetabular Inclination Limit.

RESULTS

Seventy-six hips were matched, 38 per group. No differences were observed in patient-reported outcomes or the percentage of hips reaching MCID between the groups. The navigation group was 28.8 and 6.8 times more likely to be within the Callanan and Lewinnek safe zones, respectively. Based on the Relative Acetabular Inclination Limit, the navigation group was 3.1 and 6.4 times more likely to be within the 95% and 99% CI safe zones, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Comparable improvements in patient-reported outcomes were observed in the two groups during a minimum 2-year follow-up. Navigation-assisted surgery enhances the accuracy of acetabular component positioning, with a higher likelihood of cup placement within the safe zones. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(1):e1-e6.].

Magnum metal-on-metal uncemented total hip replacement: 8- to 18-year outcomes of 211 cases

BACKGROUND

Reports of adverse reactions to metal debris contributed in part to a decline in use of large-bearing metal-on-metal total hip devices. We hypothesize an optimal trunnion design may reduce risk of this failure mode in large-bearing total hip arthroplasty systems. The purpose of this study is to report mid- to long-term outcomes for a single-surgeon series of 211 total hip arthroplasties using the large-bearing Biomet Magnum metal-on-metal system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2004 and January 2016, the primary surgeon performed 211 uncemented Magnum total hip arthroplasties in 181 patients. The average length of follow-up was 10.1 ± 3.5 years (range 8-18 years).

RESULTS

Using failure of any component as the endpoint, the overall survivorship rate was 98.1% at 10 years and 97.4% at 18 years. These eight failures (3.8% of cohort) included one case of adverse wear-related failure (0.5%), two cases of acetabular ingrowth failure (0.9%), three cases of trunnion corrosion (1.4%), one failure of late infection (0.5%), and one inappropriate revision of components for trochanteric nonunion without instability (0.5%). Excluding failed cases, all components were radiographically stable with no radiolucencies. Except for the one wear failure, ion testing revealed that 97.2% of cases were within optimal whole blood metal ion levels with the remaining ion test results within acceptable levels.

CONCLUSIONS

With the uncemented Magnum metal-on-metal total hip, we achieved 97.4% 18-year implant survivorship, exceeding the NICE criteria and registry benchmarks for implant survivorship. We observed a trunnion corrosion rate of 1.4% and no cases of instability. The single case of adverse wear-related failure was caused by acetabular component malposition.

Hypersensitivity to metals in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a prospective study of one hundred and thirty five lymphocyte transformation tests

BACKGROUND

Metal allergy remains a controversial topic in the orthopaedic community. It is not known if or to what degree metal sensitivity contributes to inflammatory soft tissue failures, unexplained residual pain, or clinical complications after total joint replacement with metal prostheses.

METHODS

We investigated the efficacy of the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) in predicting adverse outcomes in patients after receiving a metal joint replacement. Our study cohort consists of 135 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty cases performed between 2013 and 2015. All study patients had an LTT preoperatively. We retrospectively analyzed clinical outcomes and failures for our cohort.

RESULTS

There was no difference in LTT reactivity between men and women. Of the 135 patients tested, 46 (34.1% of cohort) tested positive to at least one of the materials comprising their implant, and 78 patients (57.8%) had at least one reactive score to any component of the LTT. After a minimum follow-up of two years, we did not observe an allergic response to the implant in any patients. There were no failures requiring revision. We observed a 2.2% rate of moderate residual pain; no patients with residual pain tested positive for metal sensitivity. When patients with moderate-high LTT reactivity (30.4% of cohort) were compared to the remainder of the study group, there was no difference in HHS or UCLA activity score. There was no correlation between blood metal ion levels and LTT reactivity.

CONCLUSION

We were unable to prove any predictive value of the LTT. We failed to identify hypersensitivity to metals in patients with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Mid-term clinical and radiographic outcome of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing through an anterolateral approach

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the medium-term clinical and radiographic results of current generation metal-on-metal resurfacing prostheses performed through anterolateral approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven hips in 52 patients underwent resurfacing arthroplasty. Two patients died from unrelated causes, leaving 55 hips in 35 males (3 bilateral) and 15 females (2 bilateral), with a mean age at surgery of 56.2 years (range, 27-70 years). Clinical and radiographic assessment was carried out preoperatively and at follow-up in all the survived cases. The cumulative survival rate was determined according to the method of Kaplan-Meier.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years (range, 1.8-9.1 years), 2 HRs of the same female patient were revised because of early loosening of the acetabular component. Deep venous thrombosis and transient femoral nerve palsy occurred both in 1 case. No specific complications of HR were observed. Average Harris hip score improved significantly from 59.8 points (range, 30.4-90.6) preoperatively to 93.7 points (range, 53-100) at the latest examination. Neck narrowing showed an average of 3.27%, but it never exceeded 10%. Nonprogressive acetabular radiolucencies and osteolysis were detected both in 2 hips. A high rate of patients (32, 60.4%) developed heterotopic ossifications, although low-grade in most cases (27, 84.4%). The cumulative survival rate at 9.1 years with revision for any reason as the end point was 93.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The early clinical and radiographic results of modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing performed through an anterolateral approach are promising, but longer-term follow-up studies are necessary.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients: international high-volume centres' report on the outcome of 11,382 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties in patients ⩽50 years at surgery

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients younger than 50 years poses significant challenges including postoperative limitations of activity and higher failure rates. Sub-par outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in registries remain controversial due to multiple confounders. Favourable HRA results in some studies are often regarded as irreproducible. The aim of this study is to analyse HRA outcomes in a large international cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compiled a database of 11,382 HRA patients ⩽50 years from an international group of 27 experienced HRA centres from 13 countries. 18 different metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA designs were included with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years. Outcomes were implant survivorship, revision rates, causes for revision, clinical scores and metal ion levels. Outcomes were compared between genders, sizes, implant types and pre-operative diagnoses.

RESULTS

Overall cumulative Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 88.9% at 22 years (95% CI: 88.3-89.5%). 2 HRA designs (DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR), and Corin Cormet Hip Resurfacing System (CORMET)) led to inferior results while all others yielded similar survivorships. Excluding ASR and CORMET, implant survivorship in 11,063 cases was 95% at 10 years and 90% at 22 years. In men, implant survivorship was excellent: 99% at 10 years and 92.5% at 21 years. In females, implant survivorship was 90% at 10 years and 81.3% at 22 years. The overall revision rate was 3.6% with most common reasons for revision being implant loosening and adverse local tissue reactions. The best survivorship was found in patients with osteoarthritis (95% CI, 92.1-93.3% at 22 years), the poorest was among dysplastic hips (78.3%; 95% CI, 76.5-80.1% at 20 years, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable revision rates demonstrated here may mitigate some concerns for safety and longevity of MoM HRA implants. Higher demands for activity and functionality in younger patients make HRA a potential alternative to THA.

Lewinnek Safe Zone References are Frequently Misquoted

BACKGROUND

Optimal acetabular component orientation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a necessity in achieving a stable implant. Although there has been considerable debate in the literature concerning the safe zone, to date, there has not been any review to determine if these references are consistent with the definition applied by Lewinnek et al. in 1978. Therefore, this article aims to examine the available literature in the PubMed database to determine how often a correct reference to the safe zone as defined by Lewinnek was applied to discussions regarding THA.

METHODS

A search for literature in the PubMed database was performed for articles from 1978 to 2019. Search criteria included terms 'Lewinnek,' 'safe zone,' and 'total hip arthroplasty.' Exclusions included abstract-only articles, non-English articles, articles unrelated to THA, and those lacking full content.

RESULTS

A review of literature yielded 147 articles for inclusion. Overall, only 11% (17) cited the Lewinnek article correctly. Forty-five percent (66) of articles referenced measurements in the supine position, 18% (26) referenced other positions, and 37% (55) did not specify. Nineteen percent (28) reported measurements of the acetabular cup orthogonal to the anterior pelvic plane, while 73% (108) did not, and 7% (11) did not specify. Twenty-three percent (34) measured from computed tomography scans instead of other methods.

CONCLUSIONS

In the discussion of the safe zone regarding THA, only 11% of articles listed are consistent with the definition established by Lewinnek. This warrants further investigation into a consistent application of the term and its implications for THA implant stability and dislocation rates.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for end-stage arthritis caused by childhood hip disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hip arthritis due to Legg-Calvé-Perthes (LCP) and slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) pose altered femoral anatomy, making hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) technically complicated. We examined implant survival and clinical symptoms in patients with a history of LCP or SCPE who underwent HRA for end-stage osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Data was collected for patients who underwent HRA for osteoarthritis due to LCP (n = 59) or SCFE (n = 32). Harris Hip Scores (HHS), UCLA activity scores, and radiographs were evaluated pre and postoperatively. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests and Kaplan-Meier Survivorship curves were used to analyse data.

RESULTS

Survivorship for freedom from revision or clinical failure was 93.55(95% CI, 78.47-98.18) at 5.79 years, up until the most recent follow-up of 11.23 years. There were 3 failures: 1 LCP due to instability at 2.4 years, 1 SCFE due to femoral neck fracture at 1 month, and another SCFE due to unexplained pain at 5.8 years. Five patients, 1 LCP and 4 SCFE, had retained hardware prior to surgery; 4 had their hardware removed during surgery. Postoperatively HHS and UCLA activity scores increased (p < 0.0001, for both measures). Leg-length discrepancy improved preoperatively from 7.9 (0.0-32) mm to 0.65 (0.0-10) mm postoperatively (p < 0.0001). Follow-up radiographs of all non-failure HRA patients revealed implants to be in good alignment with no indication of loosening.

CONCLUSION

Although HRA in SCFE and LCP patients increases technical difficulties, findings demonstrate excellent implant survival, no intraoperative complications, and improvements in leg-length discrepancies and clinical functional outcomes.

Predicting changes in the status of patient-reported outcome measures after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an observational cohort study with a median follow-up of ten years

AIMS

It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing Birmingham Hip Resurfacing completed the Veteran's Rand 36 (VR-36), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at two years and a minimum of three years. A change in score was assessed against minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patient factors and deterioration in PASS status between follow-ups.

RESULTS

Overall, 18% of patients reported reductions in mHHS total score exceeding MCID, and 21% reported similar reductions for WOMAC function scores. Nonetheless, almost all patients remained above PASS thresholds for WOMAC function (98%) and mHHS (93%). Overall, 66% of patients with mHHS scores < PASS at two years reported scores > PASS at latest follow-up. Conversely, 6% of patients deteriorated from > PASS to < PASS between follow-ups. Multivariable modelling indicated body mass index (BMI) > 27 kg/m², VR-36 Physical Component Score (PCS) < 51, VR-36 Mental Component Score (MCS) > 55, mHHS < 84 at two years, female sex, and bone graft use predicted these deteriorating patients with 79% accuracy and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84.

CONCLUSION

Due to largely acceptable results at a later follow-up, extensive monitoring of multiple PROMs is not recommended for Birmingham Hip Resurfacing patients unless they report borderline or unacceptable hip function at two years, are female, are overweight, or received a bone graft during surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1431-1437.

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.

Acetabular Debonding: An Investigation of Porous Coating Delamination in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

Background

To date, there have been no published investigations on the cause of acetabular debonding, a rare failure phenomenon in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing where the acetabular porous coating delaminates from the implant while remaining well fixed to the pelvic bone.

Purposes

This study aims to summarize the current understanding of acetabular debonding and to investigate the discrepancy in rate of debonding between two implant systems.

Patients and Methods

To elucidate potential causes of debonding, we retrospectively analyzed a single-surgeon cohort of 839 hip resurfacing cases. Specifically, we compared rate of debonding and manufacturing processes between two implant systems.

Results

Group 1 experienced significantly more cases of debonding than Group 2 cases (4.0% versus 0.0%, p value<0.0001). Implant manufacturing processes differed in surface coating, heat treatment, postmanufacturing treatment, and apex thickness. Debonded implants were more likely to have missed RAIL guidelines (p=0.04).

Conclusions

We identified implant system, postoperative time, and acetabular component placement as variables contributing to rate of debonding. We recommend minimizing acetabular inclination angle according to RAIL guidelines. Further, we evaluated manufacturing differences between the two implant systems but did not have access to proprietary data to identify the cause of debonding. Both implants met ASTM standards, yet only the Group 1 implant debonded. This suggests the second implant had greater fatigue shear strength. Because the Group 2 implant achieved a more durable interface that did not debond, we suggest the ASTM F1160 standard for fatigue shear strength be increased to that achieved by its manufacturer.

Level of Evidence II

A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data.

A Randomized Seven-Year Study on Performance of the Stemmed Metal M2a-Magnum and Ceramic C2a-Taper, and the Resurfacing ReCap Hip Implants

BACKGROUND

The large-diameter metal-on-metal hip prostheses were expected to have low wear and reduced dislocation rate compared to the traditional metal-on-polyethylene implants. We compare 2 such prostheses, the ReCap resurfacing implant and the M2a-Magnum stemmed implant, with the C2a ceramic-on-ceramic stemmed implant as to clinical performance, serum concentrations of prosthesis metals, and the durability of the implants in a randomized, controlled clinical trial at 7 years of follow-up.

METHODS

All included patients had osteoarthritis. Preoperatively, the size of the implants was estimated from a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Follow-up data included serum cobalt and chromium concentrations, Oxford and Harris Hip Scores, leg press and abduction force, 6-minute walk distance, WOMAC and SF-36 self-assessment scores, and from the 7th postoperative year also ultrasonography (US) examination of the soft tissue adjacent to the implant as well as MRI with metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS-MRI) when indicated.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-two hips in 146 patients were included. The serum cobalt and chromium concentrations were significantly higher for the 2 metal-on-metal prostheses than for the ceramic-on-ceramic, with the M2a-Magnum as the highest. No significant difference was found between the groups concerning physical performance measurements and scores as well as dislocations and prosthesis survival. Five revisions were done and concerned all groups, for reasons of pain, high serum cobalt and chromium concentrations, cystic fluid collection around the joint, and infection. Metal concentrations, US, and MARS-MRI contributed to the decision making regarding prosthesis revision.

CONCLUSION

Metal concentrations were significantly higher for the metal-on-metal prostheses than for the ceramic-on-ceramic. The clinical performance was good in all 3 prosthesis groups. Metal concentrations, US, and MARS-MRI findings were of use to identify hips needing revision. ID Number in ClinicalTrials.gov PRS: NCT00284674.

Hip prostheses in young adults. Surface prostheses and short-stem prostheses

The poor results obtained in young patients when using a conventional prosthesis led to the resurgence of hip resurfacing to find less invasive implants for the bone. Young patients present a demand for additional activity, which makes them a serious challenge for the survival of implants. In addition, new information technologies contribute decisively to the preference for non-cemented prostheses. Maintaining quality of life, preserving the bone and soft tissues, as well as achieving a very stable implant, are the goals of every hip orthopaedic surgeon for these patients. The results in research point to the use of smaller prostheses, which use the metaphyseal zone more and less the diaphyseal zone, and hence the large number of the abovementioned short stem prostheses. Both models are principally indicated in the young adult. Their revision should be a more simple operation, but this is only true for hip resurfacing, not for short stems.

Interventions for Improving Hip Resurfacing Outcomes in Women: A High-Volume, Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Women seeking surgical intervention for their hip disorders will often find total hip arthroplasty (THA) presented as their only option. THA, when compared with hip resurfacing arthroplasty, removes substantially more bone-stock, limits range-of-motion, exhibits increased dislocation risk, and presents greater overall 10-year mortality rate. Despite these risks, most surgeons continue to select against women for hip resurfacing because registries notoriously report inferior survivorship when compared with men and THA.

METHODS

We investigated the reasons for why resurfacing arthroplasty devices survive poorly in women to develop interventions which might improve hip resurfacing outcomes in women. Using these findings, we developed a series of surgical interventions to treat the underlying issues. Herein, we compare 2 study groups: women who received hip resurfacings before (group 1) and after (group 2) these interventions.

RESULTS

Eight-year implant survivorship substantially improved from 89.6% for group 1 to 97.7% for group 2. Adverse wear-related failure, femoral component loosening, and acetabular component loosening were all significantly reduced in group 2, which we attribute to the implementation of our relative acetabular inclination limit guidelines, use of uncemented femoral fixation, and selection of the Tri-Spike acetabular component for supplemental fixation, respectively. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves, grouped into 2-year time intervals, show that the disparity in failure rates between men and women is diminishing.

CONCLUSION

When experienced surgeons use refined and proper surgical technique, women show promise as excellent candidates for hip resurfacing as an alternative treatment for their debilitating hip conditions.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients younger than 50 years: a retrospective analysis : 1285 cases, 12-year survivorship

BACKGROUND

The Nordic registry reports patients under 50 years old with total hip replacements realize only 83% 10-year implant survivorship. These results do not meet the 95% 10-year survivorship guideline posed by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014.

METHODS

The purpose of this study is threefold: First, we evaluate if metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty meets these high standards in younger patients. Next, we compare outcomes between age groups to determine if younger patients are at higher risk for revision or complication. Lastly, we assess how outcomes between sexes changed over time. From January 2001 to August 2013, a single surgeon performed 1285 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings in patients younger than 50 years old. We compared these to an older cohort matched by sex and BMI.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was 96.5% at 10 years and 96.3% at 12 years; this did not differ from implant survivorship for older patients. Implant survivorship at 12 years was 98 and 93% for younger men and women, respectively; survivorship for women improved from 93 to 97% by using exclusively Biomet implants. There were four (0.3%) adverse wear-related failures, with no instances of wear or problematic ion levels since 2009. Activity scores improved from 5.4 ± 2.3 preoperatively to 7.6 ± 1.9 postoperatively (p < 0.0001), with 43% of patients reporting a UCLA activity score of 9 or 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip resurfacing exceeds the stricter 2014 NICE survivorship criteria independently in men and women even when performed on patients under 50 years old.

Mid-term results of ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with mean follow-up of 7.1 years

INTRODUCTION

Despite enthusiasm for metal-on-metal bearings, disappointing short- to mid-term outcomes has all but halted the use of this bearing articulation. This review presents mid-term results for the ReCap Magnum total hip replacement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study evaluated 79 ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc total hip replacements with mean follow-up of 7.1 (range 3.7-9.2) years. 43 were female and 36 male. Metal ions were measured and radiographic measurement included a 'margin of safety' angle to quantify risk of edge loading. When a clinical suspicion of adverse reaction to metal debris was present, patients had metal artefact reduction sequence MRI. Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score evaluated functional outcome and SF-12 and EQ-5L-5D assessed quality of life at final follow-up.

RESULTS

7 hips were revised indicating 91.1% survivorship at 7.1 years. Postoperative Harris Hip Score and Oxford Hip Score significantly improved. Females and symptomatic patients predicted increased metal ions. Margin of safety correlated with postoperative Oxford Hip Score. Symptomatic hips and positive MRI showed reduced survivorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to more traditional bearings like metal or ceramic on polyethylene the overall outcome of this ReCap/Magnum/Taperloc study cohort is modest. It is felt that further failures will occur in this group therefore cautious interpretation of the results is justified given the potential for reduced survival outcomes.

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.

Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014

This paper reports the consensus of an international faculty of expert metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing surgeons, with a combined experience of over 40,000 cases, on the current status of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Indications, design and metallurgy issues, release of metal ions and adverse soft tissue reactions to particles, management of problematic cases and revisions, as well as required experience and training are covered. The overall consensus is that MoM hip resurfacing should not be banned and should be viewed separately from MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a large diameter head because of the different design and wear behaviour related to the taper/trunnion connection. The use of hip resurfacing has decreased worldwide but specialist centres continue to advocate hip resurfacing in young and active male patients. Regarding age the general recommendation is to avoid hip resurfacing in men older than 65 and in women older than 55, depending on the patient activity and bone quality. Female gender is considered a relative contraindication. Most surgeons would not implant a MoM hip in women who would still like a child. Regardless of gender, there is a consensus not to perform hip resurfacing in case of a femoral head size smaller than 46 mm and in patients with renal insufficiency or with a known metal allergy. Regarding follow-up of hip resurfacing and detection of adverse local tissue reactions, metal ion measurements, MRI and ultrasound are advocated depending on the local expertise. The consensus is that hip resurfacing should be limited to high volume hip surgeons, who are experienced in hip resurfacing or trained to perform hip resurfacing in a specialist centre.

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.

Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to conventional, stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA). The best reported results are young, active patients with good bone stock and a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Since the 1990s, metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA has achieved excellent outcomes when used in the appropriate patient population. Concerns regarding the metal-on-metal bearing surface including adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) to metal debris have recently lead to a decline in the use of this construct. The current paper aims to provide an updated review on HRA, including a critical review of the most recent literature on HRA.

Hip resurfacing

Hip resurfacing has been proposed as an alternative to traditional total hip arthroplasty in young, active patients. Much has been learned following the introduction of metal-on-metal resurfacing devices in the 1990s. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical than with these implants.

Following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006, we studied the safety and effectiveness of one hip resurfacing device (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing) at our hospital in a large, single-surgeon series. We report our early to mid–term results in 1333 cases followed for a mean of 4.3 years (2 to 5.7) using a prospective, observational registry. The mean patient age was 53.1 years (12 to 84); 70% were male and 91% had osteoarthritis. Complications were few, including no dislocations, no femoral component loosening, two femoral neck fractures (0.15%), one socket loosening (0.08%), three deep infections (0.23%), and three cases of metallosis (0.23%). There were no destructive pseudotumours.

Overall survivorship at up to 5.7 years was 99.2%. Aseptic survivorship in males under the age of 50 was 100%. We believe this is the largest United States series of a single surgeon using a single resurfacing system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B (1 Suppl A):10–13.

Wear testing of total hip replacements under severe conditions

Controlled wear testing of total hip replacements in hip joint simulators is a well-established and powerful method, giving an extensive prediction of the long-term clinical performance. To understand the wear behavior of a bearing and its limits under in vivo conditions, testing scenarios should be designed as physiologically as possible. Currently, the ISO standard protocol 14242 is the most common preclinical testing procedure for total hip replacements, based on a simplified gait cycle for normal walking conditions. However, in recent years, wear patterns have increasingly been observed on retrievals that cannot be replicated by the current standard. The purpose of this study is to review the severe testing conditions that enable the generation of clinically relevant wear rates and phenomena. These conditions include changes in loading and activity, third-body wear, surface topography, edge wear and the role of aging of the bearing materials.

Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Durom™ acetabular cup for large-diameter total hip arthroplasty: 177 implants after a mean of 80 months

BACKGROUND

Large-diameter metal-on-metal hip prostheses are no longer used, but their outcomes after more than 5 years are unknown. We conducted a retrospective study with a 6.8-year mean follow-up to assess clinical outcomes after Durom™ cup implantation, including the dislocation rate, comparatively to the reference metal-on-polyethylene bearing. We determined the rate of failure ascribable to Durom™ cup use. We also looked for a sharp drop in the implant survival curve during the follow-up period and for factors associated with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMDs).

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesised that clinical outcomes after Durom™ cup implantation were similar to those seen with a metal-on-polyethylene bearing, except for a lower rate of dislocation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We included 177 consecutive THA procedures that were performed between 2005 and 2008 in 165 patients with a mean age of 57.6 ± 9.4 years (range, 31-76 years) and involved the implantation of a Durom™ cup, a femoral head greater than 36mm in diameter, and a PF(®) femoral stem (Zimmer, Etupes, France). The mini-posterior approach was used, with 2mm of acetabular overreaming in 82% of cases, a short femoral neck in 75% of cases, and a mean cup inclination of 34 ± 5° (range, 21-50°).

RESULTS

Outcomes were assessed for 156 THA procedures in 146 patients after a mean follow-up of 6 years 8 months. The mean Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score improved from 9.7 ± 2.7 (range, 4-14) to 17.4 ± 1.7 (range, 15-18) and the mean Harris hip score from 45.2 ± 15.3 (range, 9-83) to 96.3 ± 7 (75-100). No episodes of dislocation were recorded. We identified 7 failures ascribable to the Durom™ cup including 6 due to ARMD and 1 to aseptic loosening. Implant survival after a mean of 80months was 95.5% (95% CI, 93.1-99.2), with no sharp drop in the survival curve.

CONCLUSION

The Durom™ cup eliminates the risk of hip dislocation and produces similar functional outcomes to those seen with metal-on-polyethylene bearings after a mean follow-up of 80 months. Nevertheless, given the difficulty in predicting ARMD and hypersensitivity reactions, the Durom™ cup has been discarded and patients carrying it are monitored closely.

Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty

We used a large prospective institutional registry to determine if there is a 'safe zone' that exists for acetabular component position within which the risk of hip dislocation is low and if other patient and implant factors affect the risk of hip dislocation. Patients who reported a dislocation event within six months after hip arthroplasty surgery were identified, and acetabular component position was measured with anteroposterior radiographs. The frequency of dislocation was 2.1% (147 of 7040 patients). No significant difference was found in the number of dislocated hips among the radiographic zones (±5°,±10°,±15° boundaries). Dislocators <50 years old were less active preoperatively than nondislocators (P=0.006). Acetabular component position alone is not protective against instability.

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.