Abstract
Hip resurfacing has generally been used in younger patients with early osteoarthritis of the hip. There has been considerable recent interest in this over the past few years. We conducted a prospective randomised trial comparing 2 hip resurfacing implants, Durom and ASR looking at radiological and clinical outcomes.
Forty-nine patients (78% male) with hip osteoarthritis which met the criteria for hip resurfacing were randomised to receive either a Durom or ASR resurfacing implant. These patients have so far been followed up for a minimum of one year. The groups were comparable in age (p=0.124) and gender (p=0.675). The average age in the ASR group was 54.04 years and in the Durom group it was 51.25.
Radiological views were scrutinised immediately post op and at final follow up so far to look at cup inclination, stem-shaft angle, and acetabular osseointegration.
Clinical outcomes were compared using the Oxford hip scores, WOMAC scores and SF12 scores.
At minimum follow up of 1 year the mean post operative Oxford hip score was not significantly different between the Durom (45.32, SD 3.93) and ASR (43.44, SD 8.44). The mean post operative WOMAC score was also not significantly different between the Durom (52.56, SD 6.06) and ASR (49.63, SD 2.23). There was no difference between the groups with regards to signs of osseointegration from radiological assessment (p=0.368). There were 3 periprosthetic femoral neck fractures (5.7%) and one revision for pain.
We conclude from this trial that there is no difference in the clinical or radiological findings between the Durom and ASR implants.
