Purpose. This study was performed to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty for treatment of haemophilic hip arthropathy. Material & Method. Between 2002 and 2013, 17 cases of hip resurfacing arthroplasties were performed in 16 haemophilic patients (13 cases of haemophilia A, 2 cases of haemophilia B, 2 cases of von Willebrand disease). The average age of the patients was 32.5(range: 18∼52) years. The average follow up period from the operation was 6.3 (range: 2∼13) years. In this study, the subjects that completed follow-up were composed of 5 cases composed of patients who were treated with Conserve plus. ®. hip resurfacing system, 5 cases composed of patients who were treated with Durom. ®. hip resurfacing system, 4 cases who were treated with ASR. ®. hip resurfacing system, and 3 cases who were treated with Birmingham. ®. hip resurfacing system. The Modified Harris hip score, the range of motion of the hip joint, perioperative coagulation factor requirements and complications associated with bleeding were evaluated as part of the clinical assessment. For the radiographic assessment, fixation of component, presence of femoral neck fracture, osteolysis, loosening and other complications were evaluated. Results. The modified Harris hip score improved from 65.4(47–80) points before surgery to 97.8(90–100) points at the last follow-up. The average further flexion improved from 103° (70–135) to 110°(80–130) after surgery. The average abduction improved from 22.4° (0–45) to 41.3° (20–50) after surgery. All the patients showed a significant reduction in pain. The mean requirement of factor VIII reduced from 2470 units per month before surgery to 1125 units per month at the time of the last follow-up. However, in the case of high-titer inhibitor to factor VIII, haemophilia B, von Willebrand disease, the average monthly factor requirement was not changed due to bleeding episode of other joints. There was two cases of re-bleeding. There were no femoral neck fracture, no osteolysis, and no implant loosening in last follow up. Conclusion. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for haemophilic hip arthropathy in patients with mild deformity or relatively preserved range of the hip joint motion can bring reliable pain relief, functional improvement, and reduction of factor requirement for over two years follow-up study. However, bleeding-associated complications are a cause for concern, especially for patients with antibodies against coagulation factors

Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty has been advocated as an alternative to stemmed humeral component designs given its ability to preserve proximal bone stock. Further, these implants have become more attractive given the possibility of stem-related complications including humeral fracture, stress shielding, and osteolysis; complications that may necessitate fixation, revision to long stem components, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As more total shoulder arthroplasties are performed in younger patient populations, the likelihood of increased revision procedures is inevitable. Maintaining proximal bone stock in these cases with use of a resurfacing arthroplasty not only facilitates explant during revision arthroplasty, but preservation of proximal metaphyseal bone facilitates reimplantation of components. Clinical results of these resurfacing components have demonstrated favorable results similar to stemmed designs. Unfortunately, resurfacing arthroplasty may not be as ideal as was hoped with regard to recreating native humeral anatomy. Further, resurfacing arthroplasty may increase the risk of peri-prosthetic humeral fracture, and lack of a formal humeral head cut makes glenoid exposure more difficult, which may be associated with a higher degree of neurovascular injury. Stemless humeral components are designed for strong metaphyseal fixation and avoid the difficulty with glenoid exposure seen in resurfacing designs, as these components require a formal humeral head cut. Early clinical outcomes of a single stemless design demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcome scores, without evidence of component migration, subsidence or loosening. The only mid-term clinical results of stemless design implants are seen with the Arthrex Eclipse system (Arthrex, Naples, FL). In a prospective study involving 78 patients at 5-year follow-up, significant improvements were observed in clinical outcome scores. While there was evidence of proximal stress shielding in an older population, this did not influence shoulder function. The overall revision rate was 9% at 5 years, with no component necessitating revision as a result of humeral component loosening. Resurfacing arthroplasty and stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty remain attractive options to preserve proximal metaphyseal bone stock, avoiding stem-related complications. Early and mid-term clinical outcomes are comparable to stemmed designs and demonstrate no evidence of humeral component loosening

Introduction. Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (HRA) has been performed in the United States for over 10 years and is an alternative to standard Total Hip Arthropastly (THA). It is appealing to younger patients with end stage osteoarthritis who seek to maintain active lifestyles. Benefits of HRA versus THR include a larger femoral ball size, potential to return to impact activities, decreased dislocation rates, and restoration of normal hip biomechanics. Patients ≤50 years old are a particularly challenging patient group to treat with THA because of their young age and high activity level, and as such, are well-suited for HRA. However, there are limited reports in the literature about clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes for this patient cohort. We present results of a clinical investigation at our institution for this patient cohort with minimum 5-year follow up, including long term survivorship and outcome scores. Methods. HRA, using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), was performed for 538 procedures between 2006–2009 by a single surgeon at a United States teaching hospital. After Institutional Review Board approval, medical and radiographic study records were retrospectively reviewed. Harris Hip Scores (HHS) were routinely collected. Patients who had not returned for follow-up examination were contacted by telephone for information pertaining to their status and implant, and a modified HHS was also administered. A Kaplan Meier survival curve was constructed to evaluate time to revision. Statistical analysis was performed (SAS version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Results. Of the 538 patients who underwent HRA from 2006–2009, 238 were aged ≤50 years (44%). Five-year follow up data was obtained from 209 of these patients (88%), using medical record documentation, and telephone survey as needed. The mean follow-up for all patients was 6 years (range 5–8 years). A total of 3% (8/238) were revised. Reasons included: (i) femoral loosening in 4, (ii) Iliopsoas impingement in 1, (iii) metallosis/adverse tissue reaction in 1, (iv) femoral neck fracture following motor vehicle accident in 1, and (v) unknown reasons in 1. Of the 238 patients, 55 (23%) were female, 2 (2/55; 3.6%) of whom have since undergone revision surgery for either metallosis/adverse tissue reaction, or unknown reasons. Of the 53 women who retained their BHR at 5-year follow up, the average HHS was 96.5. Of the 238 patients, 183 (77%) were male patients, 6 (6/183; 3.2%) of whom have since undergone revision surgery for femoral component loosening, iliopsoas impingement, or femoral neck fracture sustained in a motor vehicle accident. At 5-year follow-up, 177 male patients retained their implant and had an average Harris Hip Score of 98.8. The overall implant survival was 96.6% at approximately 5 years. Conclusion. In our cohort of patients aged ≤50 treated with BHR [Fig. 1], our results demonstrated 5-year survivorship of 96.6%, with average HHS of 98.8 in males and 96.5 in females. This study demonstrates HRA is a successful alternative to traditional THA in a challenging cohort of younger, active patients

Introduction. There is no consensus on the ideal management of young, active patients with disabling coxarthrosis. Within this group, patients with femoral head defects secondary to cysts or avascular necrosis pose particular challenges. Resurfacing arthroplasty is contraindicated and the results of traditional total hip arthroplasty are suboptimal in this group. The BMHR was designed to offer a bone conserving option for these patients. We report the outcome of this device in the short term. Methods. This prospective study examines the clinical and radiological outcome of a consecutive series of patients treated with the BMHR arthroplasty. All patients had femoral head defects and disabling hip pain. Patients were reviewed pre operatively and then at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 1year post operatively and then yearly. Oxford, Harris and WOMAC hip scores were calculated at each review. Radiological assessment was also performed at each follow up. Results. Forty one patients were included (28 males, 13 females). Average age was 48.0 years (3.8 to 65.1 years). All patients participated in 2 or more sporting activities. Average follow up was 12 months (3–19). Pre and post operative OHS, HHS and WOMAC scores were 34, 46 and 42 and 18, 91 and 6 respectively (p< 0.0001 in all cases). There were no complaints of pain or reduced function at last follow up and there were no revisions or pending revisions up to last follow up. All components were well fixed radiographically. Discussion. The BMHR arthroplasty has shown good early results in treatment of young, active patients with femoral head defects. It seems to offer a resurfacing option in this group with the inherent benefits of improved stability and while allowing preservation of femoral bone stock. There is also the potential for a technically less demanding future revision on the femoral side

Iliopsoas tendonitis occurs in up to 30% of patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and is a common reason for revision. The primary purpose of this study was to validate our novel computational model for quantifying iliopsoas impingement in HRA patients using a case-controlled investigation. Secondary purpose was to compare these results with previously measured THA patients.

We conducted a retrospective search in an experienced surgeon's database for HRA patients with iliopsoas tendonitis, confirmed via the active hip flexion test in supine, and control patients without iliopsoas tendonitis, resulting in two cohorts of 12 patients. The CT scans were segmented, landmarked, and used to simulate the iliopsoas impingement in supine and standing pelvic positions. Three discrete impingement values were output for each pelvic position, and the mean and maximum of these values were reported. Cup prominence was measured using a novel, nearest-neighbour algorithm.

The mean cup prominence for the symptomatic cohort was 10.7mm and 5.1mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). The average standing mean impingement for the symptomatic cohort was 0.1mm and 0.0mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). The average standing maximum impingement for the symptomatic cohort was 0.2mm and 0.0mm for the asymptomatic cohort (p << 0.01). Impingement significantly predicted the probability of pain in logistic regression models and the simulation had a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 91%, and an AUC ROC curve of 0.95.

Using a case-controlled investigation, we demonstrated that our novel simulation could detect iliopsoas impingement and differentiate between the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. Interestingly, the HRA patients demonstrated less impingement than the THA patients, despite greater cup prominence. In conclusion, this tool has the potential to be used preoperatively, to guide decisions about optimal cup placement, and postoperatively, to assist in the diagnosis of iliopsoas tendonitis.

As an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) provides the advantage of retaining bone stock. However, femoral component loosening and femoral neck fracture continue to be leading causes of revision in HRA. Surgical technique including cementation method and bone preparation, and patient selection are known to be important for fixation. This study was designed to understand if and to what extent compromise in bone quality and the presence of cysts in the proximal femur contribute to resurfacing component loosening.

A finite element (FE) model of a proximal femur was used to calculate the stress in the cement layer. Bone density to Young's modulus relationship was used to calibrate the bone stiffness in the model using computed tomography. A contemporary resurfacing implant (BHR, Smith & Nephew) was used in the FE model. The effect of reduced bone quality (35% reduction relative to normal baseline; osteoporosis threshold) and presence of cysts on stress in the bone cement layer was then assessed using the same FE model. The center of the cyst (a localized spherical cavity 1 cm in diameter) was located directly under the contact patch. Simulations were run with two locations of the center of the cyst, on the surface of the resected bone and 1 cm below it. The surface cyst was filled with bone cement, but the inner cyst was empty. The contact force and location for the model were obtained from instrumented implant studies. Simulations were run representing the peak loads during two activities, jogging and stand-up from seated position.

While density reduction of the bone reduced the stress in the CoCr femoral head, the Von-Mises stress in the cement layer was amplified. The peak Von-Mises stress in the cement layer under the contact patch increased more than six times for the jogging activity, and more than ten times for the stand-up activity, relative to values for normal bone density. The impact of cysts on the cement layer stress or the strain distributions in the bone were minimal.

The results show a greater risk of failure of the cement layer under conditions of reduced bone density. In contrast cement stresses and bone strains appeared to be relatively immune to a surface cyst filled with bone cement or an empty inner cyst. Contraindications of hip resurfacing include severe osteopenia and multiple cysts of the femoral head, however no strict or quantitative criteria exist to guide patient selection. Research similar to the one presented herein, maybe key to developing better patient selection criteria to reduce risk associated with compromised femoral head fixation.

The modern humeral head resurfacing was developed by Stephen Copeland, M.D. and introduced in 1986 as an alternative to stemmed humeral implants. At the time, first and second generation monoblock and modular stems with non-offset humeral heads posed many challenges to the surgeon to recreate the pre-morbid humeral head anatomy during anatomic TSA. The consequences of non-anatomic humeral head replacement were poor range of motion, increased native glenoid or glenoid component wear and premature rotator cuff failure. Additionally, the early generation humeral stems were very difficult to extract when revision was needed. The original stemless devices were cup resurfacing implants that were designed based on the early hip experience. The Copeland resurfacing device offered the ability to better match native humeral head anatomy and was considered less invasive and easier to revise. Glenoid exposure required more extensive dissection but TSA could be successfully completed.

Clinical results for motion, function and outcome scores are similar to stemmed implants. The survivorship of the implants is also on par with other available implants and loosening has not been an issue. Stress shielding is not reported. Multiple manufacturers offered similar products all designed to try to predictably recreate the pre-morbid anatomy and to make insertion easier.

Critical review of resurfacing arthroplasty radiographs has raised concern about the challenges of placing the implant with proper sizing and position. Most surgeons have implanted resurfacing implants as hemiarthroplasties. The development of anatomic TSA implants has allowed surgeons to better recreate the normal pre-morbid anatomy of the humerus. Newer stem designs are convertible or easily removable. This counters many of the original design benefits of resurfacing. The primary reason for revision of resurfacing implants is malposition followed by glenoid arthrosis and rotator cuff failure. Revision surgery after resurfacing has had mixed results.

Stemless implants were introduced in Europe 13 years ago. Stemless devices share the benefits of resurfacing as minimally invasive and easier to revise. The added benefit of better glenoid access allows the surgeon to implant a glenoid. Most available implants have minimal follow-up. Mid-term follow-up of one design has demonstrated good fixation and loosening is uncommon. No studies are available that critically evaluate the surgeon's ability to recreate normal pre-morbid anatomy, whether revision arthroplasty is bone preserving and if results of revision will improve.

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty implants for the proximal humerus provide cementless metaphyseal prosthetic fixation. A near-perfect anatomic restoration of the proximal humeral articular surface is possible with this canal-sparing design—avoiding the risks associated with humeral stems and preserving bone for later revision.

When compared with proximal humeral resurfacing, stemless arthroplasty avoids the potential technical errors that may lead to oversized implants, abnormal shift of the glenohumeral joint center of rotation, and excessive strain on the native rotator cuff.

While canal-sparing stemless implants represent a new concept in shoulder arthroplasty without mid- and long-term results, the failures associated with resurfacing humeral arthroplasty have been documented in the literature. Unlike a stemless component, use of a resurfacing technique (and hence preservation of the humeral head) makes glenoid prosthetic implantation challenging and often impossible.

Introduction

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has been surgical options in younger and more active patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head. Although excellent midterm results of this procedure have been reported, there is a concern about postoperative impingement between the preserved femoral neck and the acetabular component. There were few reports about kinematics after hip resurfacing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the postoperative motion analysis after hip resurfacing using a noble dynamic flat-panel detector (FPD) system by which clear sequential images were obtained with low dose radiation exposure.

Background

The Copeland shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty (CSRA) (Figure1) is a cementless, pegged humeral head surface replacement which has been in clinical use since 1986. The indications for CSRA are more or less the same as conventional stemmed arthroplasty. This procedure can be considered for all patients who require shoulder replacement due to GHJ arthritis resulted from primary or secondary OA, RA, and other variations of inflammatory arthritis. It is also suggested as the first choice option for relatively young patients with post-traumatic arthritis, avascular necrosis (AVN), and instability arthropathy. This observational study reports functional and radiological outcome in CSRA during 4 years follow-up.

The Birmingham hip resurfacing (Smith & Nephew, Tennessee) (BHR) has been used in younger more active patients.

Introduction

Female gender, old age (men >60y and women > 55y), severe acetabular dysplasia, poor proximal femoral bone geometry, large (>1cm) femoral head cysts, limb-length discrepancy (> 2cm) and small prosthetic head size (less than 50mm for men and less than 46mm for women) are risk factors for hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Introduction:

More and more metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) implants have been used for active younger patients because of its higher success rate and better function outcomes for this group of patients compared to the traditional total hip arthroplasty (THA). One of the advantages of HRA is femoral neck preservation, which provides better bone structure in case a revision is necessary in the future. However, some believe that the outcomes after revision of hip resurfacing were not as good as the traditional THA. The purpose of this study was to provide our outcomes of the revisions, due to various causes, from over 3000 HRAs.

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) has been used in the younger more active patient for the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis. Long-term follow-up of the BHR is limited. The Australian national joint replacement registry shows that failure rates vary greatly, depending on implant types. 77 consecutive BHR procedures with a minimum ten year follow-up are reported.

There were 70 patients (44 males and 26 females) with an average operation age of 57.4 years (SD ±12.6). All patients were evaluated, including the “learning curve” patients. The mean follow-up period was 11.42 years (SD ±0.50). The arthroplasties were performed between April 1999 and December 2000 by one surgeon, with a standardised patient selection set of criteria. Data and outcome measurements were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. We evaluated Harris Hip Scores, Short Form-36 (SF-36v2) Scores, Tegner Activity Score Scores and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Scores (WOMAC) comparatively at preoperative, six month and yearly intervals

In 8 patients (10 procedures) the implant was in situ at the time of death. Revision was carried out in 6 hips (7.8%) at a mean time period of 2.5 years (0–10) post-operatively. Failure was due to femoral neck fracture in four patients, acetabular loosening in one and avascular necrosis of the femoral head, leading to loosening, in one patient. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed survivorship of 92.2% to 10 years. The mean Harris Hip scores (paired t-test, p<0.05) improved significantly from 59.7 preoperatively to 80.1 at ten years. The mean SF-36v2 physical scores (paired t-test, p<0.05) improved significantly from 35.09 preoperatively to 47.83 at ten years. WOMAC scores (paired t-test, p<0.05) improved significantly from 54.61 preoperatively to 85.89 at ten years.

The BHR prosthesis, in this series, has been shown to be effective, reliable, and durable in this group of highly active, relatively young patients. Problems with metallic debris, sensitivity reactions, and osteolysis have not been seen. However, we believe that with better selection criteria, improved understanding of component positioning and surgical techniques, results can be improved.

Purpose

To evaluate the radiological changes after metal on metal resurfacing arthroplasty.

Background

The aim of this study is to analysis the ability of these patients, treated with MOMHR, to resume sport activities by gait analysis and clinical evaluations. Metal on metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) is indicated to treat symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in young active patients. These patients require a high level of function and desire to resume sport activities after surgery.

Introduction:

One reason that young and active patients choose hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) rather than stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA) is that they wish to return to high impact sports after their operation. Few studies have addressed the outcome in hip arthroplasty patients who choose to participate in high impact sports post-operatively. We therefore wanted to determine if the durability of HRA in highly active patients was decreased.

Pre-existing hip pathology such as femoroacetabular impingement is believed by some, to have a direct causal relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. The strength of this relationship remains unknown.

We investigate the prevalence of abnormal bone morphology in the symptomatic hip on the pre-operative anteroposterior pelvic radiograph of consecutive patients undergoing hip resurfacing. Rotated radiographs were excluded. One hundred patients, of mean age 53.5 years were included (range 33.4–71.4 years, 32% female). We examined the films for evidence of a cam-type impingement lesion (alpha angle >50.5°, a pistol grip, Pitt's pits, a medial hook, an os acetabuli and rim ossification), signs of acetabular retroversion or a pincer-type impingement lesion (crossover sign, posterior wall sign, ischial sign, coxa profunda, protrusio, coxa vara, Tonnis angle < 5°), and hip dysplasia (a Tonnis acetabular angle >14° and a lateral centre-edge angle of Wiberg <20°).

Pre-existing radiographic signs of pathology were present in a large proportion of hips with low grade (Tonnis grade 1–2) arthritis. There is a group of patients who presented with more advanced osteoarthritis in which we suspect abnormal bone morphology to be a causative factor but, for example, neck osteophytes obscure the diagnosis of a primary cam lesion.

Our findings corroborate those of Harris and Ganz. Impingement is radiographically detectable in a large proportion of patients who present with early arthritis of the hip, and therefore we agree that it is a likely pre-cursor for osteoarthritis. Treatments directed at reducing hip impingement may stifle the progression of osteoarthritis.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in patients with a varus deformity of the femoral neck-shaft angle (NSA) is associated with poorer outcomes. Our experience has not reflected this. We examined the Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), Harris Hip Scores (HHS) and outcomes of patients with varus hips against a normal cohort to ascertain any significant difference.

We identified 179 patients. Measurement of the femoral neck-shaft angle was undertaken from antero-posterior radiographs pre-operatively. The mean NSA was 128.5 degrees (SD 6.3). Patients with a NSA of less than 122.2 were deemed varus and those above 134.8 valgus. These parameters were consistent with published anatomical studies.

The varus cohort consisted of 23 patients, mean NSA 118.7 (range 113.6-121.5), mean follow-up 49 months (range 13-74). Mean OHS and HHS were 16 and 93.5 respectively. Complications included 2 cases of trochanteric non-union; no femoral neck fractures, early failures or revisions. Normal cohort consisted of 125 patients, mean NSA 128 degrees, mean follow-up 41 months (range 6-76). The OHS and HSS were 18.8, 88.9 respectively. Complications included 5 trochanteric non-unions and 1 revision due to an acetabular fracture following a fall. Statistical analysis demonstrated no statistical difference between the cohorts OHS (p=0.583) or HHS (p=0.139).

Our experience in patients with a varus femoral neck has been positive. Our analysis has demonstrated no statistical difference in hip scores between the cohorts. We have not yet experienced any femoral neck fractures, which we believe is due to the use of the Ganz trochanteric flip and preservation of blood supply.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in patients with a varus deformity of the femoral neck-shaft angle (NSA) has been cited in the literature as contributory factor towards a poorer outcome. Our experience has not reflected this. We examined the outcomes of patients with varus hips against a normal cohort.

Measurement of the femoral neck-shaft angle was undertaken from standard antero-posterior radiographs pre-operatively. The mean NSA was 128.5 degrees (SD 6.3). Patients less than 122.2 were deemed varus and those above 134.8 valgus. These parameters were consistent with the published literature.

The varus cohort consisted of 23 patients, mean NSA 118.7 (range 113.6-121.5), mean follow-up 49 months (range 13-74), mean OHS & HHS, 16 & 93.5 respectively. Complications included 2 cases of trochanteric non-union; no femoral neck fractures or revisions. The normal cohort consisted of 125 patients, mean NSA 128 degrees, mean follow-up 41 months (range 6-76), mean OHS & HSS, 18.8 & 88.9 respectively. Complications included 5 cases of trochanteric non-union and 1 revision. Statistical analysis demonstrated no difference between the cohorts OHS (p=0.583) or HHS (p=0.139).

Our experience in patients with a varus femoral neck has been positive. Our analysis has demonstrated no difference in outcomes between the cohorts.