Edwin P Su1, Sherwin L Su. 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 USA ; Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065 USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to traditional total hip replacement (THR) that allows for the preservation of femoral bone. It is a more technically difficult procedure that has led some researchers to report an unsatisfactory learning curve (Berend et al., J Bone Joint Surg Am Suppl 2:89-92, 2011; Mont et al., Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:63-70, 2007). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the adoption of HRA at our institution, examining the clinical results, revision rate, and modes of failure. Additionally, a comparison of three different implant systems was performed. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of HRA performed at our institution between the years 2004 and 2009 was carried out. A total of 820 HRA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included in the study. The majority of included patients were males (70%), with osteoarthritis (92%). The average age was 49.8 years, and the mean BMI was 27.5 kg/m(2). RESULTS: The average Harris hip score improved from 61 to 96.5 postoperatively. Thirteen revisions (1.6%) were performed for femoral neck fracture, femoral head osteonecrosis, acetabular loosening, metal reactivity/metallosis, and metal allergy. The overall Kaplan-Meier survival curve with revision surgery as an endpoint showed 98.5% survival at 5 years. There were no observable differences in clinical scores or revision rates between the different implant systems. CONCLUSIONS: HRA can be successfully adopted with a low complication rate, given careful patient selection, specialized surgical training, and use of good implant design.
BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to traditional total hip replacement (THR) that allows for the preservation of femoral bone. It is a more technically difficult procedure that has led some researchers to report an unsatisfactory learning curve (Berend et al., J Bone Joint Surg Am Suppl 2:89-92, 2011; Mont et al., Clin Orthop Relat Res 465:63-70, 2007). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the adoption of HRA at our institution, examining the clinical results, revision rate, and modes of failure. Additionally, a comparison of three different implant systems was performed. METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of HRA performed at our institution between the years 2004 and 2009 was carried out. A total of 820 HRA with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included in the study. The majority of included patients were males (70%), with osteoarthritis (92%). The average age was 49.8 years, and the mean BMI was 27.5 kg/m(2). RESULTS: The average Harris hip score improved from 61 to 96.5 postoperatively. Thirteen revisions (1.6%) were performed for femoral neck fracture, femoral head osteonecrosis, acetabular loosening, metal reactivity/metallosis, and metalallergy. The overall Kaplan-Meier survival curve with revision surgery as an endpoint showed 98.5% survival at 5 years. There were no observable differences in clinical scores or revision rates between the different implant systems. CONCLUSIONS: HRA can be successfully adopted with a low complication rate, given careful patient selection, specialized surgical training, and use of good implant design.
Entities:
Keywords:
complications; hip resurfacing arthroplasty; learning curve; results
Authors: G Grammatopoulos; G Grammatopolous; H Pandit; Y-M Kwon; R Gundle; P McLardy-Smith; D J Beard; D W Murray; H S Gill Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2009-08
Authors: Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Patricia A Campbell; Lauren E Wisk; Karren M Takamura Journal: Orthop Clin North Am Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.472
Authors: Paul E Beaulé; Michel Le Duff; Pat Campbell; Fred J Dorey; Sang Hyun Park; Harlan C Amstutz Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2008-07