Leg length and offset following hip resurfacing and hip replacement

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing at 20 years

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty has been used as a surgical treatment of coxarthrosis since 1997. We present 20-year results of 234 consecutive BHRs performed in our unit.

Methods

Between 1999 and 2001, there were 217 patients: 142 males (65.4%), mean age 52 years (18 to 68) who had 234 implants (17 bilateral). They had patient-reported outcome measures collected, imaging (radiograph and ultrasound), and serum metal ion assessment. Survivorship analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Revision for any cause was considered as an endpoint for the analysis.

Results

Mean follow-up was 20.9 years (19.3 to 22.4). Registry data revealed that 19 hips (8.1%) had been revised and 26 patients (12%) had died from causes unrelated to the BHR. Among the remaining 189 hips, 61% were available for clinical follow-up at 20 years (n = 115) and 70% of patients had biochemical follow-up (n = 132). The cumulative implant survival rate at 20 years for male patients was 96.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.5 to 99.6), and for female patients 87% (95% CI 79.7 to 94.9). The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.029). The mean Oxford Hip Score, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Forgotten Joint Score were 45 (29 to 48), 89 (43 to 100), and 84 (19 to 100), respectively. The mean scores for each of the five domains of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire were 1.2, 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.1, and mean overall score 82.6 (50 to 100). Ultrasound showed no pseudotumour. Mean cobalt and chromium levels were 32.1 nmol/l (1 to 374) and 45.5 nmol/l (9 to 408), respectively.

Conclusion

This study shows that BHRs provide excellent survivorship and functional outcomes in young male patients. At 20 years, soft-tissue imaging and serum metal ion studies suggest that a metal-on-metal resurfacing implant can be well tolerated in a group of young patients.

Accuracy of leg length and femoral offset restoration after total hip arthroplasty with the utilisation of an intraoperative calibration gauge

BACKGROUND

Offset and leg length (LL) restoration are critical for the achievement of a stable, well-functioning hip following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Several techniques are described in the literature, including a hip calibration gauge. We question whether meticulous preoperative planning of a specific surgical technique in combination with the utilisation of a calibration gauge can provide an accurate offset and LL restoration.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 101 unilateral THAs via a posterior approach by a single surgeon. Preoperative radiographic LL and offset were radiographically calculated. Intraoperatively prior to hip dislocation a calibration gauge was used to measure LL and offset with a pin inserted into the iliac crest acting as a static referencing point. All had pelvis x-ray performed 6 weeks postoperatively. A literature review was conducted to establish average postoperative LL/offset values for statistical comparison.

RESULTS

The average absolute postoperative leg-length discrepancy (LLD) was 2.51 mm compared to preoperatively 3.54 mm (p = 0.018). A total of 93.1% and 100% had LLD of ⩽5 mm and ⩽10 mm, respectively. The mean postoperative offset difference was 2.39 mm. The investigated LLD and offset results were comparable with literature data of studies utilising an intraoperative measuring device. LLD was significantly decreased when compared to a free-hand technique (LLD 4.42 mm, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The technique utilising preoperative templating, intraoperative offset verification together with the use of hip calibration gauge yielded accurate LLD and offset restoration as in the literature. Precise offset restoration, which often is a neglected issue, can lead to better abductor vector restoration, hip function and less pain.

Pre-operative templating in THA. Part I: a classification of architectural hip deformities

INTRODUCTION

While numerous classifications of hip arthritis have been proposed, none considered the magnitude and direction of femoral head translation relative to the native acetabulum. A more precise classification of architectural hip deformities is necessary to improve preoperative templating and anticipate surgical challenges of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of the present study was to introduce a classification system to distinguish different types of architectural hip deformities, based on femoral head translation patterns, and to evaluate its repeatability using plain radiographs (qualitative) and Computed Tomography (CT) measurements (quantitative).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied pre-operative frontal and lateral hip radiographs and CT scans of 191 hips (184 patients) that received primary THA. The distance between the femoral head center (FC) and the acetabular center (AC) was measured, as well as femoral offset, acetabular offset, head center height, acetabular floor distance and femoral neck angle. The hips were classified qualitatively using frontal plain radiographs, and then quantitatively using CT scans (with an arbitrary threshold of 3 mm as Centered, Medialized, Lateralized, Proximalized or Proximo-lateralized. The agreement between qualitative and quantitative classification methods was compared for applying the same classification.

RESULTS

Qualitative classification identified 120 centered (63%), 8 medialized (4%), 49 lateralized (26%), 3 proximalized (2%), and 11 proximo-lateralized (6%) hips, while quantitative classification identified 116 centered (61%), 8 medialized (4%), 51 lateralized (27%), 5 proximalized (3%), and 11 proximo-lateralized (6%) hips. The agreement between the two methods was excellent (0.94; CI 0.90-0.98). Medialization reached 9.7 mm, while lateralization reached 10.9 mm, and proximalization reached 8.5 mm. Proximalized and proximo-lateralized hips had more valgus necks, while medialized hips had more varus necks (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The classification system enabled repeatable distinction of 5 types of architectural hip deformities. The excellent agreement between quantitative and qualitative methods suggests that plain radiographs are sufficient to classify architectural hip deformities.

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.

Restoration of the centre of rotation in primary total hip arthroplasty: the influence of acetabular floor depth and reaming technique

AIMS

One goal of total hip arthroplasty is to restore normal hip anatomy. The aim of this study was to compare displacement of the centre of rotation (COR) using a standard reaming technique with a technique in which the acetabulum was reamed immediately peripherally and referenced off the rim.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the first cohort the acetabulum was reamed to the floor followed by sequentially larger reamers. In the second cohort the acetabulum was only reamed peripherally, starting with a reamer the same size as the native femoral head. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were analysed for acetabular floor depth and vertical and horizontal position of the COR.

RESULTS

Horizontally, the mean medial displacement of the COR was 0.8 mm (standard deviation (sd) 1.4) in the peripheral remaing group and 5.0 mm (sd 3.30) in the standard reaming group (p < 0.001). Vertically, the mean superior displacement of the COR was 0.7 mm (sd 1.3) in the peripheral reaming group and 3.7 mm (sd 2.6) in the standard reaming group (p < 0.001). In the standard reaming group, there was a strong correlation between the pre-operative acetabular floor depth and displacement of the COR (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Reaming the acetabulum to the floor can lead to significant displacement of the COR medially and superiorly. This displacement is related to the pre-operative acetabular floor depth and cannot always be compensated by using a high offset stem. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1597-603.

Still no single gold standard for using cementless femoral stems routinely in total hip arthroplasty

Background

There is now a clear trend with increased usage of cementless femoral stems for all ages and most patients. As the number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed annually continues to increase with expanding indications for THA and demands for improved quality of life, so will the prevalence of THA in the elderly and aging populations. This is worrisome as the risk of complications with cementless femoral stems increases in elderly patients and those with poor bone quality. The purpose of this study is to analyze the available data from comparative studies to determine whether cementless femoral stems are overused and whether cemented stems warrant increased consideration.

Methods

Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, searches were performed to find original studies comparing cementless and cemented femoral stems; large population registry studies and reports were also included.

Results

This systematic review documents that older patients with cementless fixation increase the risk of revision, there is no clear fixation advantage in midaged patients, and younger patients fare better with cementless fixation. Complications after THA create burdens on the health care system and on patients.

Conclusions

Using evidence-based data should be better guidance in selecting the most reliable implants for THA. Although cementless femoral fixation for THA has evolved to the “new standard,” it has not been proven to be the “gold standard” for all patients.

Computed tomography evaluation of hip geometry restoration after total hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

Anatomic reconstruction of the hip is among the main requirements for hip arthroplasty to be successful. Resurfacing arthroplasty may improve replication of the native joint geometry but has been evaluated only using standard radiographs. We therefore performed a computed tomography (CT) study to assess restoration of hip geometry after total hip resurfacing (HR), comparatively with the non-operated side.

HYPOTHESIS

HR does not change native extra-medullary hip geometry by more than 5mm and/or 5°.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

CT was used to evaluate unilateral HR in 75 patients with a mean age of 52.2years (range, 22-67years). The normal non-operated side served as the control in each patient. Mean follow-up was 2.5years (range, 1.9-3.1years). The primary evaluation criteria were femoral offset (FO) and femoral neck anteversion (FNA) and the secondary criteria were cup inclination angle, cup anteversion angle, and lower-limb length.

RESULTS

FO showed a non-significant decrease (mean, -2.2mm; range, -4.5 to +3.7mm). FNA was preserved, with a difference of less than 2° at last follow-up versus the preoperative value. Cup measurements showed a mean anteversion angle of 24.8° (0.9-48.6) and mean inclination angle of 44.1° (32.1-56.3); corresponding values for the native acetabulum were 38.9° (20.5-54.8) and 24.8° (4.8-33.6). The residual lower-limb length discrepancy was less than 1mm (mean, -0.04mm [-1.2 to +1.6mm]). The mean angle between the femoral implant and the femoral neck axis was 5.4° of valgus.

DISCUSSION

Our results show that HR accurately restored the native extra-medullary hip geometry.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, prospective diagnostic case-control study.

Results of Conserve Plus® metal-on-metal hip resurfacing for post-traumatic arthritis and osteonecrosis

The safety and efficacy of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty in post-traumatic arthritis and post-traumatic osteonecrosis (PT OA and PT ON) cases has not previously been thoroughly investigated. This study compared the outcomes of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (HR) in patients performed for an indication of OA secondary to trauma to compared to PT ON. Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasties were performed on 62 hips, 43 with PT OA and 19 with PT ON with secondary osteoarthritis. There were 51 males and 11 females. All patients were followed up clinically and radiographically with a mean follow-up of 87.2 months. Clinical outcome scores, survivorship, and radiographs were compared between the PT OA and PT ON group. The clinical outcomes for the PT ON and PT OA groups were similar with a survival rate of 95% (95% CI 82.1% to 98.8%) for the PT OA group alone at 8 years and 91% for those with PT OA with ON at 8 years (95% CI 50.8%-98.7%). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves for the cohorts of PT OA and PT ON patients were not statistically significantly different (Log rank, p=0.6036). Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing appears to be a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of both post-traumatic osteoarthritis and osteonecrosis.

Are leg length and hip offset comparable after hip resurfacing and cementless total hip arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine if hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) were comparable in correcting leg length and hip offset in patients with primary osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 80 patients who underwent either HRA or cementless THA for primary osteoarthritis (40 in each group) between 2006 and 2008. Standardised anteroposterior radiographs taken pre-operatively and at one year following surgery were used to calculate the total offset and leg length in both hips.

RESULTS

At one year following surgery, no leg length discrepancy was identified in either group. A difference of 0.39 cm (p=0.046) remained between the mean total offset of the operated hip and the contralateral non-operated hip in the HRA group. No difference in offset was observed between the two hips after surgery in the THA group (p=0.875).

CONCLUSIONS

Leg length is restored by HRA and THA. A difference remains in offset after HRA although we attribute this to intentional medialisation of the acetabular cup.

State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?

Total hip arthroplasty has shown excellent results in decreasing pain and improving function in patients with degenerative disease of the hip. Improvements in prosthetic materials, designs and implant fixation have now resulted in wear of the bearing surface being the limitation of this technology, and a number of hard-on-hard couples have been introduced to address this concern. The purpose of this article is to review the origins, development, survival rates and potential advantages and disadvantages of the following hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty: metal-on-metal standard total hip arthroplasty; metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty, ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty; and ceramic-on-metal bearings. Improvements in the manufacturing of metal-on-metal bearings over the past 50 years have resulted in implants that provide low wear rates and allow for the use of large femoral heads. However, concerns remain regarding elevated serum metal ion levels, potential teratogenic effects and potentially devastating adverse local tissue reactions, whose incidence and pathogenesis remains unclear. Modern total hip resurfacing has shown excellent outcomes over 10 years in the hands of experienced surgeons. Current ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have demonstrated excellent survival with exceptionally low wear rates and virtually no local adverse effects. Concerns remain for insertional chipping, in vivo fracture and the variable incidence of squeaking. Contemporary ceramic-on-metal interfaces are in the early stages of clinical use, with little data reported to date. Hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty have improved dramatically over the past 50 years. As bearing designs continue to improve with new and modified materials and improved manufacturing techniques, it is likely that the use of hard-on-hard bearings will continue to increase, especially in young and active patients.

Comparison of functional results of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: a review of the literature

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) results in good outcomes in function and risk for revision in older patients. However, in young, active patients, it results in an increased rate of revision and poorer outcomes. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is described as an appropriate treatment of hip osteoarthritis in young, active patients. The selection of an appropriate prosthesis is critical for this patient demographic. This review compares the functional results of THA and HRA and focuses on range of motion, activity level, groin pain, patient satisfaction, restoration of normal hip anatomy, and gait.

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.