A COMPARISON OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AFTER TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT AND HIP RESURFACING

Abstract

Background: Because of the changing demographics of the population and improvements in prosthesis design and surgical technique, ever-increasing numbers of younger patients are undergoing joint replacement. Younger patients often receive hip resurfacing rather than conventional THR because of the preservation of bone stock and the lower risk of dislocation. However, pain relief and restoration of function for younger patients is particularly important to continue with a normal, active life. Yet there is little existing research to establish if hip resurfacing results in better patient-reported outcomes than conventional total hip replacement (THR). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after hip resurfacing and THR, after controlling for age, gender, general health and length of follow-up.

Methods: A postal survey was sent to all patients who had a hip resurfacing or primary THR between April 2004 - April 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre. To assess hip pain and function, quality of life, general health and satisfaction with the outcome of surgery, the questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS Quality of Life Scale, SF-12 and a validated satisfaction scale. The continuous outcome scores were compared for those who had a THR and those who had hip resurfacing, after adjusting for age, sex, general health and length of follow-up, using Analysis of Variance.

Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 911 THR patients and 157 hip resurfacing patients (response rate of 68% and 71%). Hip resurfacing patients had a mean age of 52 years and 71% were male. THR patients had a mean age of 68 years and 37% were male. After controlling for the effects of age, gender, general health and follow-up length, there was no significant difference in pain (p=0.70), function (0.85), hip-related quality of life (p=0.66) or satisfaction (0.09) between hip resurfacing patients and THR patients at 1–3 years post-operative.

Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that hip resurfacing has no short-term clinical advantage over conventional THR. A prospective randomised controlled trial is necessary to further compare patient outcomes after hip resurfacing and THR.