The renewed interest in the clinically proven low wear of the metal-on-metal bearing combined with the capacity of inserting a thin walled cementless acetabular component has fostered the reintroduction of hip resurfacing. As in other forms of conservative hip surgery, i.e. pelvic osteotomies and impingement surgery, patient selection will help minimize complications and the need for early reoperation. Although hip resurfacing was initially plagued with high failure rates, the introduction of metal on metal bearings as well as hybrid fixation has shown excellent survivorships of 97 to 99% at 4 to 5 years follow-up. However, it is important to critically look at the initial published results. In all of these series there was some form of patient selection. For example, in the Daniel and associates publications, only patients with osteoarthritis with an age less than 55 were included with 79% of patients being male. Treacy and associates stated that: “the operation was offered to men under the age of 65 years and women under the age of 60 years, with normal bone stock judged by plain radiographs and an expectation that they would return to an active lifestyle, including some sports” A SARI score >3 represented a 4 fold increase risk in early failure or adverse radiological changes and with a survivorship of 89% at four years. The SARI index also proved to be relevant in assessing the outcome of the all cemented McMinn resurfacing implant (Corin¯, Circentester, England) at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. Hips which had failed or with evidence of radiographic failure on the femoral side had a significantly higher SARI score than the remaining hips, 3.9 versus 1.9. Finally, one must consider the underlying diagnosis when evaluating a patient for hip resurfacing. In cases of dysplasia, acetabular deficiencies combined with the inability of inserting screws through the acetabular component may make initial implant stability unpredictable. This deformity in combination with a significant leg length discrepancy or valgus femoral neck could compromise the functional results of surface arthroplasty, and in those situations a stem type total hip replacement may provide a superior functional outcome. In respect to other diagnoses (osteonecrosis, inflammatory arthritis), initial analyses have not demonstrated any particular diagnostic group at greater risk of earlier failure. The only reservation we have is in patients with compromised renal function since metal ions generated from the metal-on-metal bearing are excreted through the urine and the lack of clearance of these ions may lead to excessive levels in the blood. Because resurfacing has not been within the training curriculum of orthopaedic surgeons for the last 2 decades, there will most likely be a learning curve in the integration of this implant within clinical practice. This data was confirmed for hip resurfacing when looking at the Canadian Academic Experience where in the first 50 cases of five arthroplasty surgeons only a 3.2% failure rate was noted of which 1.6% were due to neck fracture. Femoral neck fracture can occur because of significant varus positioning as well as osteonecrosis of the femoral head due to either disruption of the blood supply or over cement penetration. Finally, abnormal wear patterns leading to severe soft tissue reactions are being increasingly recognized and are related to either impingement or vertically placed acetabular components. Although impingement has long been recognized after total hip arthroplasty to limit range of motion and in extreme cases to hip instability, the risk after hip resurfacing may be greater since the femoral head-neck unit is preserved. Beaulé and associates have reported that 56% of hips treated by hip resurfacing have an abnormal offset ratio pre-operatively, with the two main diagnostic groups presenting deficient head-neck offset being osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis both of which have been associated with femoroacetabular impingement in the pre arthritic state.Patient Selection and Hip Resurfacing
Surgical Technique
Femoral neck fractures remain the leading cause of early failure after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Although its' exact pathomechanism has yet to be fully elucidated, current retrieval analysis has shown that either an osteonecrotic event and/or significant surgical trauma to the femoral head neck junction are the leading causes. It is most likely that no single factor like patient selection and/or femoral component orientation can fully avoid their occurrence. As in osteonecrosis of the native hip joint, a certain cell injury threshold may have to be reached in order for femoral neck fracture to occur. These insults are not limited to the surgical approach, but also include femoral head preparation, neck notching, and cement penetration. Although some have argued that the posterior approach does not represent an increased risk fracture for ON after hip resurfacing because of the so-called intraosseous blood supply to the femoral head, to date, the current body of literature on femoral head blood flow in the presence of arthritis has confirmed the critical role of the extraosseous blood supply from the ascending branch of the medial circumflex, as well as the lack of any substantial intraosseous blood supply. Conversely, anterior hip dislocation of both the native hip joint as well as the arthritic hip preserves femoral head vascularity. The blood supply can be compromised by either sacrificing the main branch of the ascending medial femoral circumflex artery or damaging the retinacular vessels at the femoral head-neck junction. Thus an approach which preserves head vascularity, while minimizing soft tissue disruption would certainly be favorable for hip resurfacing. This presentation will review the current state of knowledge on vascularity of the femoral head as well as surgical techniques enhancing its preservation.
Studies on the migration of an implant may be the only way of monitoring the early performance of metal-on-metal prostheses. The Ein Bild Roentgen Analyse - femoral component analysis (EBRA-FCA) method was adapted to measure migration of the femoral component in a metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip using standard antero-posterior radiographs. In order to determine the accuracy and precision of this method a prosthesis was implanted into cadaver bones. Eleven series of radiographs were used to perform a zero-migration study. After adjustment of the femoral component to simulate migration of 3 mm the radiographs were repeated. All were measured independently by three different observers. The accuracy of the method was found to be ± 1.6 mm for the x-direction and ± 2 mm for the y-direction (95% percentile). The method was validated using 28 hips with a minimum follow-up of 3.5 years after arthroplasty. Seventeen were sound, but 11 had failed because of loosening of the femoral component. The normal (control) group had a different pattern of migration compared with that of the loose group. At 29.2 months, the control group showed a mean migration of 1.62 mm and 1.05 mm compared with 4.39 mm and 4.05 mm in the failed group, for the centre of the head and the tip of the stem, respectively (p = 0.001). In the failed group, the mean time to migration greater than 2 mm was earlier than the onset of clinical symptoms or radiological evidence of failure, 19.1 EBRA-FCA is a reliable and valid tool for measuring migration of the femoral component after surface arthroplasty and can be used to predict early failure of the implant. It may be of value in determining the long-term performance of surface arthroplasty.
