(iv) Bearing surfaces in the young patient: out with the old and in with the new?

Which is the best bearing surface for primary total hip replacement? A New Zealand Joint Registry study

INTRODUCTION

We have investigated the revision rates of all bearing surface combinations for primary total hip replacement (THR) registered on the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to determine which coupling has been the most durable and successful over the last 16 years.

METHODS

There were 106,139 primary THRs registered, resulting in 4,960 revisions for any cause. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses.

RESULTS

Ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoPx) had the lowest all-cause revision rate of 0.54/100-component-years (cys) (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.61). This was superior to all other hard-on-soft bearing combinations in unadjusted analysis. Furthermore, the age of patients receiving CoPx was significantly lower than for metal-on-polyethylene (mean 62.9; standard deviation [SD] 10.1 vs. 69.1; SD 9.6; p<0.001). Acetabular loosening was the reason for revision in 14.5% of CoPx, compared to 33% of MoP THRs (p<0.001). Metal-on-metal bearings had the highest revision rate of 1.43/100 cys and were significantly inferior to CoPx (p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analyses were performed and we adjusted the analyses to control for age, femoral head size, surgical approach and fixation.

CONCLUSIONS

CoPx remained the most durable and successful coupling used in primary THR in New Zealand irrespective of age, gender or size of femoral head.

A fractured and immovable ceramic liner in a screw-fixed acetabular shell during total hip arthroplasty: a case report

We report a complication during total hip arthroplasty using an uncemented press-fit acetabular shell and ceramic liner for a woman with osteoarthritis. Fracture of the ceramic liner occurred during its insertion owing to non-concentric reduction. The main body of the ceramic liner became wedged in the acetabular shell and was resistant to removal. The shell itself was immovable owing to the prior insertion of 2 polyaxial screws, to which access was covered. Successful removal involved drilling a hole in the ceramic liner as a stress riser, and then cracking the liner with a Steinman pin.

Outcomes of birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review

Purpose

We performed a systematic review to assess the functional outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing as reported in peer-reviewed literature.

Methods

We performed a computerized search on the data sources up to February 2011. The following text and key words were searched: “Birmingham hip”, “Birmingham hip resurfacing” and “Hip resurfacing”. Each of these key words was again searched with “outcomes” following them. We also hand searched the bibliographies of the retrieved articles and our own files to identify specifically relevant articles.

Results

Fourteen retrospective studies and three prospective studies were included for review. Each of these studies was evaluated by the criteria given by Sackett and AACPDM. The design, patient criteria, intervention, outcomes, duration of follow up and results of the research were reported.

Conclusions

Although the technique of BHR does allow the femur to be spared, claims that it may allow patients to be more active need to be further investigated.

The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Hip resurfacing (HRS) procedures have gained increasing popularity for younger, higher-demand patients with degenerative hip pathologies. However, with concerns regarding revision rates and possible adverse metal hypersensitivity reactions with metal-on-metal articulations, some authors have questioned the hypothesized superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this meta-analysis, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken of all published (Medline, CINAHL, AMED, EMBASE) and unpublished or gray literature research databases up to January 2010. Clinical and radiological outcomes as well as complications of HRS were compared to those of THA using risk ratio, mean difference, and standardized mean difference statistics. Studies were critically appraised using the CASP appraisal tool.

RESULTS

46 studies were identified from 1,124 citations. These included 3,799 HRSs and 3,282 THAs. On meta-analysis, functional outcomes for subjects following HRS were better than or the same as for subjects with a THA, but there were statistically significantly greater incidences of heterotopic ossification, aseptic loosening, and revision surgery with HRS compared to THA. The evidence base showed a number of methodological inadequacies such as the limited use of power calculations and poor or absent blinding of both patients and assessors, possibly giving rise to assessor bias.

INTERPRETATION

On the basis of the current evidence base, HRS may have better functional outcomes than THA, but the increased risks of heterotopic ossification, aseptic loosening, and revision surgery following HRS indicate that THA is superior in terms of implant survival.