Hip resurfacing procedures have gained increasing popularity for younger, higher demand patients with degenerative hip pathologies. However, with concerns regarding revision rates and possible adverse metal hypersensitivity reactions with metal-on-metal articulations, some authors have questioned the hypothesised superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates of these two procedures. A systematic review was undertaken of all published and unpublished research up to January 2010. The primary search was of the databases Medline, CINAHL, AMED and EMBASE, searched via Ovid using MeSH terms and Boolian operators ‘hip’ AND ‘replacement’ OR ‘arthroplasty’ AND ‘resurfacing’. A secondary search of unpublished literature was conducted using the databases SIGLE, the National Technical Information Service, the National Research Register (UK), the British Library's Integrated Catalogue and Current Controlled Trials databases using the same search terms as the primary search. All included studies were critically appraised with the CASP appraisal tool. In total, 46 studies were identified from 1124 citations. These included 3799 hip resurfacings and 3282 total hip arthroplasties. On meta-analysis, functional outcomes for subjects following hip resurfacing were better than or the same as subjects with a total hip arthroplasty, with significantly higher WOMAC score (Mean Difference (MD)=−2.41; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): −3.88, −0.94; p=0.001), and significantly better Harris Hip Score (range of motion component) (MD=−0.05; 95% CI: (−0.07, −0.03; p<0.0001) and overall Harris Hip Score (MD=2.51; 95% CI: 1.24, 3.77; p=0.0001) in the hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty cohorts. However, there were significantly greater incidences of heterotopic ossification (Risk Ratio (RR)=1.62; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.14; p=0.006), aseptic loosening (RR=3.07; 95% CI:1.11, 8.50;p=0.03) and revision surgery (RR=1.72; 95% CI: 1.20, 2.45; p=0.003) with hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty. The evidence-base presented with a number of methodological inadequacies such as the limited use of power calculations and poor or absent blinding of both patients and assessors, potentially giving rise to assessor bias. In respect to these factors, the current evidence-base, whilst substantial in its size, may be questioned in respect to its quality in determining superiority of hip resurfacing over total hip arthroplasty.
Rheumatoid arthritis results in pain and loss of function due to gradual destruction of articular cartilage. The shoulder joint is frequently involved and a prosthetic replacement of the humeral head can restore function and relieve pain. Deficiency of the rotator cuff is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Longevity of movement at the intraprosthetic interface of the bipolar shoulder prosthesis is debatable and has not previously been studied in rheumatoid arthritis. We report a radiological study of the intraprosthetic movements of a bipolar shoulder replacement in 25 shoulders in 20 patients with rheumatoid arthritis of mean age 66 years (SD 10 years). Shoulders were X-rayed at a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 10 years from surgery. Measurements were repeated in 12 shoulders 3 years later. The patient was positioned in the scapular plane. An initial X-ray was taken with the arm in neutral and a further X-ray taken with the arm in full active abduction. Measurements were taken to determine the movement at the intraprosthetic interface and at the prosthesis/glenoid interface. Interobserver error and intraobserver error were determined using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A paired T-test and Pearson Correlation Coefficient were used to compare intraprosthetic movement with prosthesis/glenoid movement. We found that intraprosthetic movement was preserved up to 10 years from surgery. However, there was no significant difference between intraprosthetic movement and shell/glenoid movement, with some shoulders exhibiting paradoxical movement at the intraprosthetic interface. Repeating the measurements after a 3 year interval in a subgroup of 12 shoulders showed a significant difference in intraprosthetic movement. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for measurements of the movement at the intraprosthetic interface were excellent with a We conclude that movement of the bipolar shoulder prosthesis in rheumatoid shoulders at the intraprosthetic interface is preserved up to 10 years from operation but is not related to or significantly different from prosthesis/glenoid movement and requires further investigation.
Conventional banking of donated femoral heads has been well documented in the literature. It relies on screening potential donors, providing a storage facility and sterilisation techniques which are not standardised. Stored femoral heads have a finite lifetime and wastage does occur. Prion contamination and malignant potential are present with modern storage techniques. We report a technique of banking the donor’s femoral head in a surgically fashioned subperiosteal pouch, under iliacus. Young patients requiring a total hip replacement who are likely to need revision at a later date are suitable candidates. Patients who have signs of loosening of their total hip replacement and contralateral osteoarthritis are also suitable. The femoral head is retrieved and used for the donor’s own revision surgery. Interim clinical results for 12 patients with the head harvested at a maximum of 5 years from implantation are presented. We report no morbidity at the pouch site and present radiographic results showing good integration of the morselised femoral head bone graft in revision hip surgery. Histological results are also presented. Autobanking of the patient’s own femoral head has the advantage of providing a graft with a reduced risk of infection, rich in growth factors, with the potential of osteoinduction. It eliminates the need for a storage facility, screening programme and provides a portable storage facility if the patient moves area.
