Abstract
Young osteoarthritic male patients have been considered the ideal candidates for Metal-on-Metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), based on generally good long term results. In contrast, hip resurfacing in young female patients has become controversial. Recently, one implant manufacturer withdrew 46mm and smaller components, citing poorer than expected 10 year outcomes in females with smaller HRAs. Whether this difference is related to gender or to component size is still debated. Possible reasons for higher failure rates reported in females include higher rates of hip dysplasia, poorer bone quality and the risk of higher wear in some smaller sized implants with low cup coverage angles.
We reviewed HRA revision specimens with the aim of comparing mode of failure, time to revision, femoral cement characteristics and acetabular bone attachment in specimens larger and smaller than 46mm and from male versus female patients.
Methods
The study included all of the MoM HRA devices in our collection. Of the 284 hip resurfacing devices with complete clinical information, 131 were from male and 153 from female patients. Femoral sizes ranged from 36 – 58mm, median and mode 46mm; median size in females was 44 and 50mm in males. Time to failure ranged from 1 to 178 months, median 24 mos. Seven designs were represented but the majority were Conserve Plus (n=105 WMT, USA) and BHR (n=78 Smith & Nephew, USA) which differ in cementing technique. 131 femoral components were sectioned and the width of the cement mantle and the amount of cement in the head were measured. Where available, the amount of bone attached to the cup porous surface (n=91), tissue ALVAL scores (n=75) and bearing wear depth (n=138) were included in the multivariate analysis.
Results
As a function of gender, there were no significant differences in time to revision, cement measurements or ALVAL scores. Wear depth was significantly higher in females (femoral 41um vs 21um; cup 50um vs 16um, p=0.05). As a function of size (46 and less = small), the <46mm group had a slightly shorter time to revision, 30 vs 38 months, p=0.04). Bone ingrowth ranged from 0 to 60% (Figure 1) and significantly less bone attachment was noted in both the smaller and larger components (p = 0.001). Other characteristics were similar in both groups. When wear-related failure modes (cup malposition, lysis, high ions) were compared, no differences between male and female or large vs small were found. The amount of cement in the femoral heads covered a wide range but femoral loosening or fracture rates were not different as a function of size or gender.
Conclusion
This review of 248 revised HRAs from multiple surgeons, designs and modes of failure found no clear evidence that smaller HRA components were at higher risk of earlier failure or for any particular failure mode. The small components in this cohort were not more likely to have wear-related failures but of note, very few of these HRAs had implants with low coverage angles in the small sizes.
