10-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: a non-designer case series

What is the long-term survivorship, complication profile, and patient reported outcomes after Birmingham hip resurfacing?

Introduction

When indicated, Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) presents a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), but there remain questions about the long-term outcomes of BHR. Therefore, we asked: 1) what are the long-term patient-reported outcomes and 2) survivorship rates following BHR; 3) what are the causes for revision surgery after BHR? and 4) how have these outcomes compared to THA at long-term follow-up.

Methods

A query of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane in September 2023 was performed. Articles were included if they reported BHR survivorship rates at ≥10 years. Survivorship was defined as an all-cause revision of any BHR component. This review encompasses 26 articles, totaling 13,103 hips. Mean follow-up ranged from 6.0 to 20.9 years, but each study had at least a subgroup analysis for ≥10-year follow-up.

Results

Five studies compared preoperative and postoperative PROs for BHR, with four reporting improvement in at least one PRO after 10-year follow-up. Overall, survivorship rates ranged from 83% to 100% across diverse long-term timeframes, with 25 of 26 studies reporting 10-year survivorship rates greater than 87%. The primary reasons for revisions were implant loosening (22%), adverse reactions to metal debris (21.2%), and fractures of any kind (17.2%). In the six studies that compared BHR to THA, long-term survivorship was similar while BHR exhibited slightly superior activity levels.

Conclusion

The findings from this study suggested favorable long-term survivorship and postoperative outcomes of BHR. In studies comparing long-term BHR and THA, survivorship was comparable, with BHR potentially providing enhanced postoperative activity levels.

Long-Term Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Independent Series with At Least 10 Years of Follow-up

Background

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) provides an attractive alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the management of osteoarthritis in younger, more active patients; however, concerns persist over complications specific to HRA. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the documented long-term survival rates of the metal-on-metal BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System at a follow-up of at least 10 years and to analyze the functional outcomes and cause of failures.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken of all published cohort studies available in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed research databases up to December 2021, as recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data extraction was focused on survival rates, causes of failure, and functional outcomes. Survival estimates at 10 years were pooled in a meta-analysis, with each series weighted by its variance. Causes of failure were presented as a percentage of the pooled revisions.

Results

A total of 11 studies were identified, encompassing 3,129 cases. Across the 9 studies that had reported a mean follow-up, the mean follow-up was 11.7 years (range, 9.55 to 13.7 years). We found a pooled 10-year survival rate of 95.5% (95% confidence interval, 93.4% to 97.1%). There were 149 revisions among the studies (range, 4 to 38 revisions per study), a rate of 4.8% of the total procedures performed. The 2 main causes of revision were aseptic loosening (20.1% of revisions) and adverse reactions to metal debris (20.1%). There were no revisions for dislocation. Of the studies that reported preoperative functional scores, all reported significant improvement in mean scores postoperatively except for 1 study in which the mean Tegner activity score did not significantly improve.

Conclusions

When performed for appropriate indications, patients undergoing an HRA with use of the BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing System can expect good implant survivorship at 10 years with acceptable functional results and low rates of dislocation and infection. This systematic review, however, confirms concerns regarding adverse reactions to metal debris as a leading cause of revision.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review of outcomes at minimum 10-years follow-up

Although controversy surrounding the use of metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasty implants continues to exist, satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes have been reported following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) at long-term follow-up, leading to an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) rating of 13A. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the functional outcomes, radiological outcomes and revision rates following BHR at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. Using the PRISMA guidelines, two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases. Only studies reporting on outcomes of BHR with a minimum of 10 years' follow-up were considered for inclusion. A total of 12 studies including 7132 hips (64.8% males), with mean follow-up of 11.5 years (10-15.3), met our inclusion criteria. Of included patients, 94.3% of patient underwent BHR for osteoarthritis at a mean age was 52.0 years (48-52). At final follow-up, 96% of patients reported being satisfied with their BHR, with mean Harris Hip Scores of 93.6 and Oxford Hip Scores of 16.5. Rates of radiological femoral neck narrowing of greater than 10% and non-progressive radiological loosening were reported as 2.0% and 3.8% respectively. At final follow-up, the overall revision rate was 4.9% (334/7132), deep infection rate was 0.4%, metal allergy/insensitivity rate was 1.6%, metal reaction rate was 0.3%, rate of peri-prosthetic fracture was 0.9% and aseptic loosening rates were 1.6%. This systematic review demonstrates that BHR results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, acceptable implant survivorship, low complication rates and modest surgical revision rates in the long-term at minimum 10-year follow-up.

Survivorship and risk factors for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing

Aims

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoM-HR) has seen decreased usage due to safety and longevity concerns. Joint registries have highlighted the risks in females, smaller hips, and hip dysplasia. This study aimed to identify if reported risk factors are linked to revision in a long-term follow-up of MoM-HR performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Methods

A retrospective review of consecutive MoM hip arthroplasties (MoM-HRAs) using Birmingham Hip Resurfacing was conducted. Data on procedure side, indication, implant sizes and orientation, highest blood cobalt and chromium ion concentrations, and all-cause revision were collected from local and UK National Joint Registry records.

Results

A total of 243 hips (205 patients (163 male, 80 female; mean age at surgery 55.3 years (range 25.7 to 75.3)) with MoM-HRA performed between April 2003 and October 2020 were included. Mean follow-up was 11.2 years (range 0.3 to 17.8). Osteoarthritis was the most common indication (93.8%), and 13 hips (5.3%; 7M:6F) showed dysplasia (lateral centre-edge angle < 25°). Acetabular cups were implanted at a median of 45.4° abduction (interquartile range 41.9° - 48.3°) and stems neutral or valgus to the native neck-shaft angle. In all, 11 hips (4.5%; one male, ten females) in ten patients underwent revision surgery at a mean of 7.4 years (range 2.8 to 14.2), giving a cumulative survival rate of 94.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.6% to 98.0%) at ten years, and 93.4% (95% CI 89.3% to 97.6%) at 17 years. For aseptic revision, male survivorship was 100% at 17 years, and 89.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 96.7%) at ten and 17 years for females. Increased metal ion levels were implicated in 50% of female revisions, with the remaining being revised for unexplained pain or avascular necrosis.

Conclusion

The Birmingham MoM-HR showed 100% survivorship in males, exceeding the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence '5% at ten years' threshold. Female sex and small component sizes are independent risk factors. Dysplasia alone is not a contraindication to resurfacing.

Long-term changes in blood metal ion levels in patients with hip resurfacing implants: implications for patient surveillance after 10 years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Studies investigating changes in blood metal ion levels during the second decade of the implant lifetime in MoM hip resurfacing patients are scarce.

METHODS

Patients implanted with either Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) or Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) hip resurfacings with >10 years follow-up and repeated blood metal ion measurements were identified at 2 large specialist European arthroplasty centres. After excluding patients with initial metal ion levels >7 ppb, the proportion of patients with an increase in blood metal ion levels above previously validated implant-specific thresholds (cobalt 2.15 ppb for unilateral implants, cobalt or chromium 5.5 ppb for bilateral) was assessed.

RESULTS

We included 2743 blood metal ion measurements from 457 BHR patients (555 hips) and 216 ASR patients (263 hips). Of patients with initial metal ion levels below implant specific thresholds, increases in cobalt or chromium level, respectively, to above these thresholds during the second decade were seen as follows: unilateral BHR (cobalt = 15.6%), unilateral ASR (cobalt = 13.8%), bilateral BHR (cobalt = 8.2%, chromium = 11.8%), bilateral ASR (cobalt = 8.5%, chromium = 4.3%). Measurement-to-measurement changes exceeding +2.15 ppb or +5.5 ppb were, however, uncommon during the second decade. Subgroup results with small diameter (<50 mm) implants were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend less frequent blood metal ion measurements are needed (every 3 to 5 years) for hip resurfacing patients if initial values were below 7ppb.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m². Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years).

RESULTS

The 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24).

CONCLUSION

Revision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty provides excellent long-term survivorship and function in patients with a good-sized femoral head : results of a single, non-designer surgeon's cohort

Aims

To establish the survivorship, function, and metal ion levels in an unselected series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRAs) performed by a non-designer surgeon.

Methods

We reviewed 105 consecutive HRAs in 83 patients, performed by a single surgeon, at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years (9.3 to 19.1). The cohort included 45 male and 38 female patients, with a mean age of 49.5 years (SD 12.5)

Results

At the time of review 13 patients with 15 hips had died from causes unrelated to the hip operation, and 14 hips had undergone revision surgery, giving an overall survival rate of rate of 86.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.2 to 89.1). The survival rate in men was 97.7% (95% CI 96.3 to 98.9) and in women was 73.4% (95% CI 70.6 to 75.1). The median head size of the failed group was 42 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 42 to 44), and in the surviving group was 50 mm (IQR 46 to 50). In all, 13 of the 14 revised hips had a femoral component measuring ≤ 46 mm. The mean blood levels of cobalt and chromium ions were 26.6 nmol/l (SD 24.5) and 30.6 nmol/l (SD 15.3), respectively. No metal ion levels exceeded the safe limit. The mean Oxford Hip Score was 41.5 (SD 8.9) and Harris Hip Score was 89.9 (14.8). In the surviving group, four patients had radiolucent lines around the stem of the femoral component, and one had lysis around the acetabular component; eight hips demonstrated heterotopic ossification.

Conclusion

Our results confirm the existing understanding that HRA provides good long-term survival and function in patients with adequate-sized femoral heads. This is evidenced by a 97.7% survival rate among men (larger heads) in our series at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years. Failure is closely related to head sizes ≤ 46 cm.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):68–76.

Limited need for screening of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients beyond 10 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines lack consistency on how to screen metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty patients for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Long-term outcomes of MoM hip arthroplasty are scarce, hindering further development of such guidelines. We present the clinical, radiological and ARMD status of 158 cases of hip resurfacing with >10 years follow-up.

METHODS

A prospective analysis of a cohort of 298 consecutive hip resurfacing procedures was performed at a single institution. All patients underwent MARS-MRI scanning for pseudotumour screening at least once, regardless of symptoms. Implant survival and reasons for revision were analysed for all patients. Clinical, radiological and MARS-MRI results were analysed for 158 unrevised procedures with >10 years follow-up.

RESULTS

The implant survival was 85.9% at 14.5 years (95% CI, 81.9-90.6) with revision for all causes as endpoint and 92.3% with MoM disease-related revisions excluded (95% CI, 88.2-95.0). Of the 158 cases with >10 years follow-up, 1 had elevated metal ion levels, 29 had a stable C1 pseudotumour and 6 a stable C2 pseudotumour. All pseudotumours were observed within 3 years after initiating our intensified ARMD screening (2011), with no new pseudotumours observed after that period.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that follow-up of MoM hip resurfacing patients beyond 10 years after surgery can be done with large intervals (i.e. every 5 years), and only earlier if a patient becomes symptomatic.

Comparison of the long-term cause of failure and survivorship of four hundred and twenty seven metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties: resurfacing versus large head total hip arthroplasty

Introduction

Comparison of mid- to long-term cause of failure and survivorship of metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) and large head total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains sparse. This study aimed to identify and compare the cause of failure and survivorship of MoM RHA and THA at a minimum ten year follow-up.

Methods

Four hundred twenty-seven MoM hip arthroplasties (286 THA and 141 RHA) were retrospectively analyzed at a mean follow-up of 13 ± three years. Causes of failure were reported as MoM specific (i.e., adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and painful hip with ion elevation) or MoM non-specific (i.e., fracture, infection, and dislocation). Chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) ion levels and Co/Cr ratio were compared. Survivorship was compared according to the cause of failure with revision as the endpoint.

Results

The rate of ARMD was significantly higher in THA (OR = 2.9 [95%-CI: 1–7]; p = 0.02). No significant difference was detected in failure rate due to other causes between the two groups (p = 0.2–0.9). Ion levels and Co/Cr ratio were both significantly higher in THA (p < 0.01). Survivorship was significantly lower in THA compared to RHA at ten years [89% (95%-CI: 85%–91%) vs 96% (95%-CI: 91%–98%); p = 0.01] and 15 years [73% (95%-CI: 67%–78%) vs 83% (95%-CI: 73%–90%); p = 0.01].

Conclusion

RHA survivorship was significantly higher at any time point. Failure rate due to ARMD was significantly higher in THA while no significant difference in other causes of failure was observed between the two groups. This result emphasizes the role of fretting corrosion at the head-neck junction (i.e., trunnionosis) with significantly higher ion levels and Co/Cr ratio dissociation in THA.

Safety and Efficacy of Same-Day Hip Resurfacing

Same-day discharge (SDD) surgery in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been shown to have similar outcomes to non-SDD THA in select patient populations. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to THA for young, active patients, making them ideal candidates for SDD. This study compared the safety and efficacy of non-SDD HRA and SDD HRA for specific postoperative outcomes. An electronic data warehouse query was performed for procedures labeled "hip resurfacing." Data collected included demographics, surgical factors, and quality metrics. Statistical analyses were evaluated using a graphing and statistics software program. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square tests and continuous variables with Student's t tests, with P<.05 deemed significant. Sixty-three of 274 total HRAs were enrolled in this SDD HRA protocol. No significant difference was observed between SDD HRA and non-SDD HRA baseline characteristics. On postoperative day 0, 98.41% of SDD HRA recipients were discharged successfully. The SDD HRA recipients had shorter stays, with 1.59% requiring a hospital stay of 2 days or more compared with 56.87% of non-SDD HRA recipients (P<.0001). The non-SDD HRA recipients were found to have shorter surgical times than SDD HRA recipients (104.74 vs 125.51 minutes, P=.01). Rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, emergency department visits, and hospital readmissions were equivalent (P=.99). Same-day discharge HRA is a safe and effective procedure with similar outcomes to non-SDD HRA regarding infections, fractures, emergency department visits, and readmissions. The major benefit of SDD is a shorter hospital stay that may lead to decreased cost while preserving and enhancing quality of care and patient satisfaction. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e595-e600.].