Abstract
The renewed interest in the clinically proven low wear of the metal-on-metal bearing combined with the capacity of inserting a thin walled cementless acetabular component has fostered the reintroduction of hip resurfacing. As in other forms of conservative hip surgery, i.e. pelvic osteotomies and impingement surgery, patient selection will help minimize complications and the need for early reoperation.
Patient Selection and Hip Resurfacing
Although hip resurfacing was initially plagued with high failure rates, the introduction of metal on metal bearings as well as hybrid fixation has shown excellent survivorships of 97 to 99% at 4 to 5 years follow-up. However, it is important to critically look at the initial published results. In all of these series there was some form of patient selection. For example, in the Daniel and associates publications, only patients with osteoarthritis with an age less than 55 were included with 79% of patients being male. Treacy and associates stated that: “the operation was offered to men under the age of 65 years and women under the age of 60 years, with normal bone stock judged by plain radiographs and an expectation that they would return to an active lifestyle, including some sports”. However in the materials and methods, although the mean age is 52 years, the range is from 17 to 76 years including some patients with rheumatoid arthritis as well as osteonecrosis. Obviously, some form of patient selection is needed; but how one integrates them is where the Surface Arthroplasty Risk Index (SARI) is useful. With a maximum score of 6, points are assigned accordingly: femoral head cyst >1cm: 2 points; patient weight <82kg: 2 points; previous hip surgery: 1 point; UCLA Activity level >6: 1 point.
A SARI score >3 represented a 4 fold increase risk in early failure or adverse radiological changes and with a survivorship of 89% at four years. The SARI index also proved to be relevant in assessing the outcome of the all cemented McMinn resurfacing implant (Corin¯, Circentester, England) at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. Hips which had failed or with evidence of radiographic failure on the femoral side had a significantly higher SARI score than the remaining hips, 3.9 versus 1.9. Finally, one must consider the underlying diagnosis when evaluating a patient for hip resurfacing. In cases of dysplasia, acetabular deficiencies combined with the inability of inserting screws through the acetabular component may make initial implant stability unpredictable. This deformity in combination with a significant leg length discrepancy or valgus femoral neck could compromise the functional results of surface arthroplasty, and in those situations a stem type total hip replacement may provide a superior functional outcome. In respect to other diagnoses (osteonecrosis, inflammatory arthritis), initial analyses have not demonstrated any particular diagnostic group at greater risk of earlier failure. The only reservation we have is in patients with compromised renal function since metal ions generated from the metal-on-metal bearing are excreted through the urine and the lack of clearance of these ions may lead to excessive levels in the blood.
Surgical Technique
Because resurfacing has not been within the training curriculum of orthopaedic surgeons for the last 2 decades, there will most likely be a learning curve in the integration of this implant within clinical practice. This data was confirmed for hip resurfacing when looking at the Canadian Academic Experience where in the first 50 cases of five arthroplasty surgeons only a 3.2% failure rate was noted of which 1.6% were due to neck fracture. Femoral neck fracture can occur because of significant varus positioning as well as osteonecrosis of the femoral head due to either disruption of the blood supply or over cement penetration. Finally, abnormal wear patterns leading to severe soft tissue reactions are being increasingly recognized and are related to either impingement or vertically placed acetabular components. Although impingement has long been recognized after total hip arthroplasty to limit range of motion and in extreme cases to hip instability, the risk after hip resurfacing may be greater since the femoral head-neck unit is preserved. Beaulé and associates have reported that 56% of hips treated by hip resurfacing have an abnormal offset ratio pre-operatively, with the two main diagnostic groups presenting deficient head-neck offset being osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis both of which have been associated with femoroacetabular impingement in the pre arthritic state.
Conclusion
Although patients with a high activity level are likely to put their hip arthroplasties at risk for earlier failure, limiting a patient's activity because of fear of revision with a stem type hip arthroplasty has been shown to negatively impact the quality of life at long term follow-up. Thus hip resurfacing arthroplasty plays a significant role in the treatment of hip arthritis by permitting a return to full activities or what the patient perceives as his/her full capacities to do so, permitting them to enjoy a better quality of life without fearing a major hip revision.
