Abstract
Hip resurfacing has in recent years become increasingly popular as an arthroplasty technique, particularly amongst younger patients with more active lifestyles. The procedure has been heralded as a more conservative option, aimed at those wishing to continue strenuous work and recreational activities. In the populalapress and the internet, many claims are made regarding aspects of this procedure, but little evidence has appeared in the scientific literature, either with the results of resurfacing or comparing resurfacing to conventional total hip arthroplasty.
We compare the outcomes of a consecutive series of 44 hybrid hip resurfacings against a similar series of 50 conventional hybrid hip arthroplasties (THR’s), all performed in patients aged 60 or under by a single consultant Surgeon. Data on operation time, blood loss, and length of stay, as well as complications, were all prospectively recorded. A modified Harris Hip score was also documented preoperatively, as well as at 6, 26 and 52 weeks postoperatively. In the resurfacing group, there were 28 Male and 16 female, mean age 47.6 years. In the THR group, there were 22 male and 28 female patients, of mean age 51.9 years. The results for the two groups were analysed, and p value of < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
The results showed no difference in operation time or blood loss. There was a small reduction in average length of stay from 7.1 to 6.4 days, which was not clinically significant, while the Modified Harris Hip Scores at 6 and 52 weeks were the same for both groups. We conclude that whilst it has been previously shown that there is an overall preservation of bone stock following resurfacing arthroplasty, there is no evidence to back additional claimed benefits.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Peter Kay, Editorial Secretary. Correspondence should be addressed to British Hip Society, The Hip Centre, Wrightington Hospital, Appley Bridge, Wigan, Lancashire WN6 9EP.
