Abstract
Introduction: Patients following resurfacing frequently remark about the natural feel of the resurfaced hip joint in contrast to those with total hip arthroplasty. Possible reasons for this include the larger femoral head size, conservation of bone and superior biomechanics of the implant with more accurate restoration of femoral offset, leg length and femoral anteversion.
Our aim was to assess femoral offset and leg length following hip resurfacing and hybrid THR (uncemented acetabulum) performed by the same surgeon.
Methods: A consecutive group of patients were identified (35 resurfacing and 25 hybrid). AP pelvis radiographs were evalulated, films with evidence of malrotation or inadequate imaging of the femur were excluded, leaving 21 resurfacing and 15 hybrid. Comparison was made between the pre-op and post-op films together with the contralateral hip on the same film. Patients with hip dysplasia or significant pathology in the contralateral hip were excluded. Magnification of the films was measured by comparison of the templated diameter of the implanted femoral head and the acutal diameter of the implant. To allow comparison between pre-op films a measurement was taken between the obturaror foraminae.
All films were analysed by the same investigator using the technique described by Jolles et al (J Arthroplasty 2002). A horizontal line was drawn between the base of the teardrop on both sides, and perpendicular lines drawn from the back of the teardrops. The anatomical femoral axis was drawn and femoral offset measured from this. The centre of rotation of the femoral head was determined by templating and the acetabular offset obtained.
Distance from tip of the greater trochanter to the centre of the femoral head in the axis of the femur was determined on pre and post-op films, as this shows little variation with rotation of the femur. Leg length was measured from the horizontal line to the tip of the greater trochanter together with the angle between the femoral axis and the horizontal to correct for abduction of the hip.
Results: Mean total femoral offset compared to the contralateral side was −1.3mm (SD 5.3) and −3.2mm (SD 6.5) for the resurfacing and hybrid groups respectively. No significant difference was detected in leg length or other measurements.
Discussion and Conclusion: No significant differences were demonstrated between femoral offset or leg length in the resurfacing and hybrid arthroplasty groups. This study does not support the hypothesis that resurfacing produces more accurate restoration of hip biomechanics than hybrid total hip arthroplasty.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr Carlos Wigderowitz, Honorary Secretary BORS, University Dept of Orthopaedic & Trauma Surgery, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY.
