PRESERVATION OF ACETABULAR BONE STOCK DURING HIP ARTHROPLASTY – A COMPARISON OF TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT WITH TWO GENERATIONS OF RESURFACING

Abstract

Resurfacing arthroplasty is advantageous over conventional total hip arthroplasty in that femoral bone stock is preserved. However, there has been controversy over the preservation of acetabular bone stock in resurfacing arthroplasty, with the concern that it may result in excess reaming compared with total hip replacement. This is of concern as the prosthesis is primarily advocated in the young patient, who is likely to face future revision surgery.

We prospectively identified a cohort of 68 patients with primary hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional total hip arthroplasty. During surgery, the excised femoral head and neck diameter was measured, along with the diameter of the final acetabular reamer used to achieve a bed of bleeding cancellous bone. The measured neck diameter was then used to calculate the minimum possible resurfacing head and cup sizes, with corresponding final reamer sizes that could have been used in each patient without neck notching for both Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR, Smith & Nephew, 3rd Generation) and Articular Surface replacement (ASR, De Puy, 4th Generation). Reaming diameter and volume was compared for all 3 groups.

Mean reaming diameters for the THR, ASR and BHR groups were 51, 52 and 56mm respectively. Mean reaming volumes were 39, 40 and 47cc. There was a statistically significant difference between the THR and BHR groups for both reamed diameter and volume (p< 0.001). There was also a significant difference between the ASR and BHR groups for both reamed diameter and volume (p< 0.001). This difference was more pronounced with larger neck diameters.

Our data shows that the BHR results in more ace-tabular bone loss compared to total hip replacement. An implant with a lower profile acetabular cup and a larger variety of sizes such as the ASR may allow better preservation of acetabular bone stock.