Abstract
Objective: The treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) in young active patients remains a challenge. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the clinical and radiographic results of the two different hip resurfacing systems, hemi-resurfacing and metal-on-metal total-resurfacing, in patients with ONFH.
Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 20 patients with 30 hips with ONFH who underwent hemi-resurfacing or total-resurfacing between November 2002 and February 2006. We mainly performed hemi-resurfacing for early stage ONFH, and total-resurfacing for advanced stage. Fifteen hips in 11 patients had a hemi-resurfacing component (Conserve, Wright Medical Co) with the mean age at operation of 50 years and the average follow-up of 5.5 years. Fifteen hips in 10 patients had a metal-on-metal total-resurfacing component (Birmingham hip resurfacing, Smith & Nephew Co.) with the mean age at operation of 40 years and the average follow-up of 5 years. Clinical and radiographic reviews were performed.
Results: The average postoperative JOA hip scores were 86 points in hemi-resurfacing, 96 points in total-resurfacing. The difference of pain score was a main factor to explain the difference of total JOA hip score in the two groups. Both implants were radiographically stable, but radiolucent lines around the metaphyseal stem were more frequent in total-resurfacing. In hemi-resurfacing patients, ten of 15 hips had groin pain or groin discomfort, three hips were revised to total hip arthroplasties (THA) because of femoral neck fracture, acetabular pro-trusio, and osteoarthritic change, respectively. On the other hand, in total-resurfacing patients, there were no revision and no groin pain.
Discussion: In the prosthetic treatment of young active patients with ONFH, it is theoretically desirable to choose an implant with conservative design in anticipation of the future revision surgery. Hemi-resurfacing hip arthroplasty is the most conservative implant for the treatment of ONFH. However, the results of hemi-resurfacing in this study have been very disappointing due to high revision rates and insufficient pain relief despite of the good implant stability. On the other hand, the pain relief and implant survivorship after total-resurfacing were superior to the results of hemi-resurfacing, although the usages of the total-resurfacing were for more advanced cases. These results suggested that total-resurfacing was a more valuable treatment option for active patients with ONFH than hemi-resurfacing
Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net
