Background

It has been suggested that routine follow-up of primary THR patients could be performed by GPs in primary care, rather than by orthopaedic specialists. Essential radiographic follow-up would likely be based on radiographic reports, rather than on inspection of the radiographs themselves.

Introduction: The hip resurfacing in younger patients is being performed more frequently in the UK. At the same time conventional Total Hip Replacement (THR) is also being performed.. We carried out a study to compare the patient satisfaction and outcome following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) and Total Hip Replacement (THR) in patients below the age of 55 years.

Methods: There were 93 BHR in 73 patients and 74 THR in 64 patients performed between February 1997 to June 2005.. Retrospective evaluation of notes and complications were identified. We carried out our study using Oxford Hip score and Modified WOMAC questionnaire by postal and telephonic survey.

Results: We found that mean length of stay was 4.5 days for BHR and 6.4 days for THR patients. (P< 0.0001) The dislocation rate was 0% for BHR as oppose to 4% for THR. (P< 0.05) The mean Oxford Hip score improved from pre-operative 43 to 14 for BHR as oppose to 48 to 22 for THR patients. The mean modified WOMAC score improved from 21 to 8.4 for BHR as oppose to 25 pre-operative score to 12 for THR. We also found early and sustained improvement in these scores for BHR as compare to THR during their follow-up within 6 months to 8 years. The improvement in pain score was 100% following BHR as opposed to 84% for THR. Following BHR 70% patients were very active or active as oppose to only 30% of THR patients. Return to the work and sporting activities following BHR was at a mean of 9 weeks as oppose to 14 weeks following THR. (P < 0.05) The level of satisfaction was 98% following BHR as oppose to 84% following THR. (P=0.356).