Literature DB >> 25820838

Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up.

Md Quamar Azam1, Stephen McMahon2, Gabrielle Hawdon3, Sukesh Rao Sankineani4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Resurfacing as a percentage of total hip arthroplasty rose from 5.6 % in 2001 to 8.9 % in 2005 in Australia. During the same period the resurfacing to conventional prosthesis rose from 19.6 % to 29 % in the younger age group (less than 55 years). Long term (more than ten years) functional results of BHR are sparingly documented. Among the literatures available, the patient selection criteria vary from osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, and dysplastic hip to slipped capital femoral epiphysis. The objective of the current study is to evaluate long term survivorship and functional outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing surgery in osteoarthritic hip patients performed by a single surgeon. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective clinical study, all patients who underwent hip resurfacing for osteoarthritis of hip between 1999 and 2004 are included. All surgeries were performed by single surgeon (SJM) and in all patients Smith & Nephew system (Midland Medical Technologies, Birmingham, United Kingdom)) was used. Revision surgery is considered the end point of survivorship. Means, standard deviations, and confidence interval were calculated for all continuous measures. Survival analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated. RESULT: The result is based on 222 patients (244 hips). This included 153 males and 69 females. Our mean follow up was 12.05 years and overall survival was 93.7 %. In terms of gender, survival in males was 95.43 % while in females it was 89.86 %. Failure was seen in 14 patients (16 hips), which included seven female (10.14 %) and seven male (4.57 %) patients. Failure of femoral components due to aseptic loosening and varus collapse was seen in eight patients after a mean 9.6 years. Metal allergy was seen in three patients (five hips), all of them were female of which two had bilateral resurfacing. Other complications included femoral neck stress fractures in two patients and acetabular component loosening in one patient. We observed that the failure rate is higher if the BHR femoral component size is 46 or less (ten out of 16 hips revised).
CONCLUSION: If patient selection is judiciously done and surgical technique is meticulously followed, hip resurfacing offers acceptable survivorship, satisfactory range of motion and enables patients to resume high demand activities including sports. Future improvements in the bearing surfaces, and possibly in the design, might alleviate concerns posed by high serum metal level and provide options that continue to benefit younger patients in future.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BHR; Long term; Outcome; Survivorship

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25820838     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2731-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  34 in total

1.  Outcomes of limited femoral resurfacing arthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Authors:  M A Mont; A D Rajadhyaksha; D S Hungerford
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Callum W McBryde; Matthew P Revell; Paul B Pynsent
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing at ten years: role of routine whole blood metal ion measurements in screening for pseudotumours.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Timo Puolakka; Petra Elo; Jorma Pajamäki; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Phillip S Ragland; Gracia Etienne; Thorsten M Seyler; Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis.

Authors:  D McMinn; R Treacy; K Lin; P Pynsent
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Influence of implant design on blood metal ion concentrations in metal-on-metal total hip replacement patients.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; Paul B Pynsent; Ronan B Treacy; David J Dunlop
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Donald S Garbuz; Michael Tanzer; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri; Clive P Duncan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing dysplasia component in severe acetabular insufficiency: a six- to 9.6-year follow-up.

Authors:  D J W McMinn; J Daniel; H Ziaee; C Pradhan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-06

Review 9.  Why total hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Femoral neck fractures after hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Robert-Tobias Steffen; Pedro R Foguet; Stephen J Krikler; Roger Gundle; David J Beard; David W Murray
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  7 in total

1.  Pleomorphic clinical spectrum of metallosis in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Francesco Pisanu; Carlo Doria; Matteo Andreozzi; Marco Bartoli; Laura Saderi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Paolo Tranquilli Leali
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Comparing return to sport activities after short metaphyseal femoral arthroplasty with resurfacing and big femoral head arthroplasties.

Authors:  Panagiotis K Karampinas; Eustratios G Papadelis; John A Vlamis; Hlias Basiliadis; Spiros G Pneumaticos
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2017-01-03

3.  Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention for prosthetic joint infection: comparison of outcomes between total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Enrick Castanet; Pierre Martinot; Julien Dartus; Eric Senneville; Henri Migaud; Julien Girard
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 3.479

4.  Long-term results of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients.

Authors:  Keisuke Uemura; Masaki Takao; Hidetoshi Hamada; Takashi Sakai; Kenji Ohzono; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 1.731

5.  Birmingham Hip Resurfacing for osteoarthritis - a Canadian retrospective cohort study with a minimum 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Jonathan Bourget-Murray; Scott J Watt Kearns; Sophie Piroozfar; Jayd Lukenchuk; Kelly Johnston; Jason Werle
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Is the Survivorship of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Better Than Selected Conventional Hip Arthroplasties in Men Younger Than 65 Years of Age? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  James Stoney; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; Sophia Rainbird; Thu-Lan Kelly; Alesha Hatton
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 7.  Prevalence of Failure due to Adverse Reaction to Metal Debris in Modern, Medium and Large Diameter Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements--The Effect of Novel Screening Methods: Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Authors:  Aleksi Reito; Olli Lainiala; Petra Elo; Antti Eskelinen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.