We previously reported the five to ten-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of the BHR at long-term follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed 250 patients from the original cohort of 324 BHRs performed from 2006 to 2013 who met contemporary BHR indications. Of these, 4 patients died and 4 withdrew. From the 242 patients, 224 patients (93%) were available for analysis. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were collected and compared to a matched total hip arthroplasty (THA) cohort. Mean follow-up was 14 years. Survivorship free of aseptic revision was 97.4% and survivorship free of any revision was 96.0% at 15 years. Revisions included 3 periprosthetic joint infections, 2 for elevated metal ions and symptomatic pseudotumor, 2 for aseptic femoral loosening, and 1 for unexplained pain. The mean mHHS was 93 in BHR patients at final follow-up, similar to the THA cohort (p=0.44). The UCLA score was significantly higher for BHR patients (p=0.02), however there were equal proportions of patients who remained highly active (UCLA 9 or 10) in both groups, 60.5% and 52.2% (p=0.45) for BHR and THA respectively. Metal ion levels at long term follow-up were low (mean serum cobalt 1.8±1.5 ppb and mean serum chromium 2.2±2.0 ppb). BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship in males less than 60 years of age at time of surgery. Clinical outcomes and activity levels were similar to THA patients. Failures related to the metal-on-metal bearing were rare and metal levels were low at long-term follow-up. Level of evidence: III Keywords: survivorship; hip arthroplasty; activity; metal-on-metal Surface Replacement Arthroplasty demonstrates low revision rates and similar activity level compared to total hip arthroplasty at long-term follow-up.
Due to the recent rapid expansion of scooter sharing companies, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of electric scooter (e-scooter) injuries. Our purpose was to conduct a systematic review to characterize the demographic characteristics, most common injuries, and management of patients injured from electric scooters. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using variations of the term “electric scooter”. We excluded studies conducted prior to 2015, studies with a population of less than 50, case reports, and studies not focused on electric scooters. Data were analyzed using Aims
Methods
