Abstract
Reasons for failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty include femoral neck fracture, loosening, femoral head osteonecrosis, metal sensitivity or toxicity and component malpositioning.
Patient factors that influence the outcome include prior surgery, body mass index, age and gender, with female patients having two and a half times greater risk of revision by 5 years than males 1–4. In 2008, the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (ANJRR) reported poorer results with small sizes, whereby component sizes 44mm or less have a five times greater risk of revision than those 55mm or greater 1. This finding is true for both males and females and after accounting for femoral head size, the effect of gender is eliminated.
We explore the relationship between component size and the factors that may influence the survivorship of this procedure, resulting in higher revision rates with smaller components.
These include femoral neck loading, edge loading, wear debris production and the effects of metal ions, cement penetration, component orientation, and femoral head vascularity. In particular the way the components are scaled from the large sizes down to the smaller sizes results in some marked changes in interactions between the implant and the patient.
Wall thickness of the acetabular and femoral component does not change between the large and small sizes in most devices. This results in a relative excessively thick component in the small sizes. This may cause more acetabular and femoral bone loss, increased risk of femoral neck notching and relative undersizing of the component where acetabular bone is a limiting factor. Stem thickness does not change throughout the size range in many of the devices leading to relatively more femoral bone loss and a greater stiffness mismatch between the femoral stem and the bone. Relatively stiffness between the femoral stem and the bone is up to six times greater in the small size compared to the large size in some designs.
The angle subtended by the articular surface (the articular arc) ranges from 170° down to as low as 144° in the small sizes of some devices. A smaller articular arc increases the risk of edge loading, especially if there is any acetabular component malpositioning. Acetabular inclination has been related to metal ion levels 5 and to the early development of pseudotumour6.
An acetabular component with a radiographic inclination of 45° will have an effective inclination anywhere from 50° to 64° depending on the type and size of the component. This corresponds to a centre-edge angle from 40° down to 26°. The effective anteversion is similarly influenced by design.
The result of a smaller articular arc is to reduce the size of the ‘safe window’ which is the target for orthopaedic surgeons.
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
1 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA; 2008., 2008. Google Scholar
2 Duijsens AW, Keizer S, Vliet-Vlieland T, Nelissen RG. Resurfacing hip prostheses revisited: failure analysis during a 16-year follow-up. Int Orthop2005;29–4:224–8. Google Scholar
3 Morlock MM, Bishop N, Ruther W, Delling G, Hahn M. Biomechanical, morphological, and histological analysis of early failures in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]2006;220–2:333–44. Google Scholar
4 Siebel T, Maubach S, Morlock MM. Lessons learned from early clinical experience and results of 300 ASR hip resurfacing implantations. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]2006;220–2:345–53. Google Scholar
5 De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Camp-bell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008;90–10:1291–7. Google Scholar
6 Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CL, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008;90–7:847–51. Google Scholar
