Purpose of the study: The purpose of this work was to compare the subjective and functional outcomes of patients with a large diameter total hip arthroplasty (LD-THA) or hip resurfacing (HR).

Material and methods: Forty-eight persons were assessed and double blind randomised to receive either LD-THA (n=24) or HR (n=24). The clinical and radiographic assessment and gait analysis were performed preoperatively and at three, six and 12 months postoperatively. Gait analysis was performed once in a third group of healthy adults (n=14) who served as controls.

Results: The two groups were comparable preoperatively regarding demongraphic and functional characteristics. Postoperatively, the two groups with prostheses exhibited very rapid recovery with normalization of test results compared with controls within three to six months. The clinical assessment, the analysis of postural balance, gait analysis and most of the specific tests were not different between the two groups with prostheses.

Conclusion: There was no remarkable difference in subjective or objective assessments between subjects with a LD-THA or HR. This suggests that the only potential advantage of HR is the preservation of femoral bone stock. Long-term HR implant survival will determine the reality of this benefit.

Purpose: Better clinical outcome is generally reported after hip resurfacing when compared to conventional 28mmTHA. This may simply be the consequences of biased patient selection, patient perception or the advantageous use of larger diameter femoral heads in HR. The true clinical benefits of HR can only be assessed by comparison with LDH-THA in a blinded randomized study to eliminate/reduce those biases. This was the aim of the study.

Method: Charnley class A patients were randomized between HR or LDH-THA and kept blinded for one year. Clinical data, gait analysis, postural balance evaluations and functional tests were performed pre-operatively at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Fourteen normal patients served as controls.

Results: Twenty-four patients were assigned to each group. There was no significant difference in WOMAC, SF-36, activity scores, and patient satisfaction. A slight advantage was observed for HR during the functional reach test (postural balance) and for LDH-THA during the step test (speed, strength and balance), all other tests showing no differences. Both groups quickly reached controls value for all tests by 3 months.

Conclusion: We have failed to demonstrate a clear difference in outcome between HR and LDH-THA. Both groups fully recovered quickly. The postulated clinical advantages of HR over 28mmTHA most likely result from using a larger head in highly motivated patients. The only clear advantage of HR over LDH-THA remains proximal femoral bone conservation, although with the excellent durability of currently used femoral stems, HR has to demonstrate comparable survivorship before bone conservation is considered a true benefit.

Introduction: Better clinical outcome is generally reported after hip resurfacing when compared to conventional 28mmTHA. This may simply be the consequences of biased patient selection, patient perception or the advantageous use of larger diameter femoral heads in HR. The true clinical benefits of HR can only be assessed by comparison with LDH-THA in a blinded randomized study to eliminate/reduce those biases. This was the aim of the study.

Materials and Methods: Charnley class A patients were randomized between HR or LDH-THA and kept blinded for one year. Clinical data, gait analysis, postural balance evaluations and functional tests were performed preoperatively, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. 14 normal patients served as controls.

Results: 24 patients were assigned to each group. There was no significant difference in WOMAC, SF-36, activity scores, and patient satisfaction. A slight advantage was observed for HR during the functional reach test (postural balance) and for LDH-THA during the step test (speed, strength and balance), all other tests showing no differences. Both groups quickly reached controls value for all tests by 3 months.

Discussion: We have failed to demonstrate a clear difference in outcome between HR and LDH-THA. Both groups fully recovered quickly. The postulated clinical advantages of HR over 28mmTHA most likely result from using a larger head in highly motivated patients. The only clear advantage of HR over LDH-THA remains proximal femoral bone conservation, although with the excellent durability of currently used femoral stems, HR has to demonstrate comparable survivorship before bone conservation is considered a true benefit.