Abstract
One of the most commonly cited advantages of hip resurfacing is the technical ease of revision surgery on the femoral side of the joint. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that such surgery ought to be associated with reduced operative times, reduced blood loss and more rapid mobilisation than conventional hip revision. However, there is little objective evidence in the literature to support this view.
In our own unit, 6 consultants have now revised 15 hip resurfacings (13 Corins and 2 MMT Birmingham Hip Resurfacings). A retrospective study of the hospital records was performed to compare three well recorded parameters 1) On table operative times 2) Post Operative blood transfusion requirement 3) In patient length of stay.
Average on table time was 195 minutes for conventional THR revision and 120 minutes for revision of resurfacing i.e. a 1 third reduction in theatre time for resurfacing with attendant advantages in costs and risks. However, post operative length of stay was little different between the two groups.
Average blood transfusion requirement was 4.6 units for conventional THR revision (n=190) and 0.9 units for revision of resurfacing. However, these crude figures do not take into account the difference in physiological state between the two groups of patients. A more complex comparison of age matched revision THR patients shows and average transfusion requirement of 1.8 to 2.2 units for revision of THR versus 0.9 units for revision resurfacing.
In conclusion, there is now objective evidence of the advantages of resurfacing in the revision situation but that these advantages are more modest than those anticipated.
Theses abstracts were prepared by Mr Peter Kay. Correspondence should be address to him at The Hip Centre, Wrightington Hospital, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire WN6 9EP.
