Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Trauma

A SINGLE US SURGEON EXPERIENCE WITH THE ADOPTION OF HIP RESURFACING USING 3 DIFFERENT IMPLANTS

European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) - 12th Congress



Abstract

Hip resurfacing has grown rapidly since its introduction in the United States, as an alternative to total hip replacement in the younger, active patient. Some studies have suggested a steep learning curve and a higher complication rate when compared to THR. Existing studies have originated from the pioneering surgeons, using a specific type of resurfacing implant. The purpose of this study was to look at the experience of a single, non-inventor surgeon with the adoption of hip resurfacing, using 3 different implants.

M&M

All consecutive hip resurfacings performed by the senior surgeon between 2004 and 2008 were included, providing a minimum 2 year followup period. 3 different implant types were used; 2 of these were used as part of the clinical trials, and 1 was used after US FDA approval. A total of 560 hip resurfacings were eligible for the study based upon a minimum of 2 year followup.

Results

Nine revisions were performed in this cohort (1.6%). 2 were femoral conversions to endoprostheses for femoral neck fracture; 3 additional femoral conversions were done for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. 1 acetabular revision only was performed for malposition. 2 revisions to THR of both the acetabular and femoral components were done for acetabular loosening and excessive metal production (edge loading). There was 1 revision for metal hypersensitivity. Overall, the K-M survival curve is 98.1% at 4 years. There was no difference with regard to survival from additional surgery with regard to the different implant types.

Radiographic signs of failure were also documented. In this cohort, 3 femoral and 1 acetabular components were identified to be radiographically loose, giving a K-M survival from clinical and radiographic failure to be 96.8% at 4 years.

Discussion

Hip resurfacing can be adopted successfully with a low rate of reoperation, by the use of careful patient selection. A single surgeon's experience with 3 different types of implants demonstrated no difference in clinical results between the devices.