Abstract
Background: There is no consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip in young, highly active patients. Modern hip resurfacing is bone conserving, more stable and theoretically easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been promising. We have compared two well matched cohorts of patients with regard to function, pain relief and patient satisfaction.
Methods: This prospective study included 2 cohorts of well matched patients treated with hip resurfacing (137 patients, 141 hips) and custom uncemented (CADCAM) stems (134 patients, 141 hips). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included Oxford, WOMAC and Harris hip scores. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student’s t- test.
Results: One hundred and thirty four and 137 patients were included in the hip replacement and resurfacing groups respectively. The mean age of these patients was 54.6 years. The mean duration of follow up for the resurfacing group was 19.2 months compared to 13.4 months for the replacement group.
Pre operative oxford, Harris and WOMAC scores in the THA group were 41.1, 46.4 and 50.9 respectively while the post operative scores were 14.8, 95.8 and 5.0. In the HR group, pre- operative scores were 37.0, 54.1 and 45.9 respectively compared to 15.0, 96.8 and 6.1 post operatively. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in short term outcome between the groups of patients treated with hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty in the short term.
Correspondence should be addressed to BHS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.
