Abstract
Thinning of the femoral neck occurs in 77% of patients undergoing hybrid Birmingham hip resurfacing using a posterior approach (Shimmin 2007). Villar recently reported lower neck thinning rates in uncemented Cormet resurfacings (11.7%) compared with hybrid Birmingham resurfacing (13.4%), both via a posterior approach.
We have evaluated implant position and femoral neck thinning in a cohort of 273 uncemented HA coated Cormet 2000 hip resurfacings using ‘B’-series (Titanium/HA coated) cups in 269 patients (mean age 54 years, 39% female) with a mean follow-up of 3 years (range 1–4 years).
Mean cup inclination was 45° (30°–63°), mean SSA 138° (120°–178°). No lucent or sclerotic zones have been identified around the stem of the component. Only one femoral neck fracture has occurred (incidence 0.36%)
We have identified only one case of femoral neck thinning in our series (0.36%).
Whilst Villar has demonstrated a slight reduction in neck thinning rates using the same implants compared to a hybrid fixation Birmingham resurfacing, his neck thinning rates are almost 40 times higher than in our series. Shimmins ‘severe neck thinning (> 10%) rates (27%) are approximately 120 times higher than our series. In addition, we have been unable to confirm the relationship between implant position and neck thinning described by Shimmin in our series using the combined Ganz/uncemented resurfacings compared with Birmingham resurfacings.
Implant design and surgical approach have an impact on ‘neck thinning after resurfacing; we should be wary of treating all resurfacing implants and techniques as a uniform cohort.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr Peter Howard, Editorial Secretary, BHS, c/o BOA, The Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.