UNLABELLED: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has had excellent clinical outcomes from multiple centers. However, controversy exists regarding the most appropriate patient selection criteria. Many proponents of hip resurfacing believe that narrowing the patient indications with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria may lead to improved outcomes and decreased complication rates. The purpose of this study was to review the results of resurfacing performed by an experienced surgeon to determine if implant survival and complication rates were different between subgroups of patients with different demographic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 311 patients who had a hip resurfacing arthroplasty performed after the initial learning curve and who had a minimum follow-up of 5 years (mean, 93 months). These patients were compared to a group of 93 patients (96 hips) who underwent resurfacings, with newer selection criteria based on the findings of the first cohort. RESULTS: Overall, there were 10 failures in the first patient cohort (97% survivorship), compared to no failures in the second cohort. Higher revision rates were associated with patients who had osteonecrosis or rheumatoid arthritis. Patients who had femoral component sizes larger than 50 millimeters had lower revision rates. There were no revisions in patients who were under 50 years of age, had head sizes greater than 50 millimeters, and who had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. DISCUSSION: After evaluating our initial experience after the learning curve, the ideal patient selection criteria was determined to be young males who have femoral head sizes greater than 50 millimeters. The early results are encouraging in that, although resurfacing may not be appropriate for all patients, it can provide predictable, excellent survivorship in these patients.
UNLABELLED: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has had excellent clinical outcomes from multiple centers. However, controversy exists regarding the most appropriate patient selection criteria. Many proponents of hip resurfacing believe that narrowing the patient indications with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria may lead to improved outcomes and decreased complication rates. The purpose of this study was to review the results of resurfacing performed by an experienced surgeon to determine if implant survival and complication rates were different between subgroups of patients with different demographic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 311 patients who had a hip resurfacing arthroplasty performed after the initial learning curve and who had a minimum follow-up of 5 years (mean, 93 months). These patients were compared to a group of 93 patients (96 hips) who underwent resurfacings, with newer selection criteria based on the findings of the first cohort. RESULTS: Overall, there were 10 failures in the first patient cohort (97% survivorship), compared to no failures in the second cohort. Higher revision rates were associated with patients who had osteonecrosis or rheumatoid arthritis. Patients who had femoral component sizes larger than 50 millimeters had lower revision rates. There were no revisions in patients who were under 50 years of age, had head sizes greater than 50 millimeters, and who had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. DISCUSSION: After evaluating our initial experience after the learning curve, the ideal patient selection criteria was determined to be young males who have femoral head sizes greater than 50 millimeters. The early results are encouraging in that, although resurfacing may not be appropriate for all patients, it can provide predictable, excellent survivorship in these patients.