Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.

We describe the results at five years of a prospective study of a new tri-tapered polished, cannulated, cemented femoral stem implanted in 51 patients (54 hips) with osteoarthritis. The mean age and body mass index of the patients was 74 years and 27.9, respectively. Using the anterolateral approach, half of the stems were implanted by a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and half by six different registrars. There were three withdrawals from the study because of psychiatric illness, a deep infection and a recurrent dislocation. Five deaths occurred prior to five-year follow-up and one patient withdrew from clinical review.

In the remaining 51 hips the mean pre-operative Oxford hip score was 47 points which decreased to 19 points at five years (45 hips). Of the stems 49 (98%) were implanted within 1° of neutral in the femoral canal. The mean migration of the stem at five years was 1.9 mm and the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 100%. There was no significant difference in outcome between the consultant and registrar groups. At five years, the results were comparable with those of other polished, tapered, cemented stems. Long-term surveillance continues.

We have used the Oxford hip score to monitor the progress of 1908 primary and 279 revision hip replacements undertaken since the start of 1995. Our review programme began in early 1999 and has generated 3900 assessments.

The mean pre-operative scores for primary and revision cases were 40.95 and 40.11, respectively. The mean annual score for primary replacement at between 12 and 84 months ranged between 20.60 and 22.57. A comparison of cross-sectional and longitudinal data showed no significant differences. All post-operative reviews showed a significant improvement (p ≤ 0.0001). The 50- to 60-year-old group scored significantly better than the patients over 80 years of age up to 48 months (p < 0.01). A subgroup of 826 National Health Service (NHS) and 397 private patients, treated by the senior author (2292 Oxford assessments), had a higher (i.e. worse) mean pre-operative score for the NHS patients (p ≤ 0.001). The private patients scored better than the NHS group up to 84 months (p < 0.05). Patients treated by a surgeon performing more than 100 replacements each year had a significantly better outcome up to five years than those operated on by surgeons performing fewer than 20 replacements each year. The age of the patients at the time of operation, and their pre-operative level of disability, have both been identified as affecting the long-term outcome. Awareness of the influence of these factors should assist surgeons to provide balanced advice.

Aims: To compare the femoral stem position and alignment, using different methods of insertion. The Exeter stem has been compared with a new tri-tapered, polished, cannulated, cemented, femoral component.

Method: We have reviewed 100 post operative AP and 50 lateral radiographs for each group. Analysis determined both stem tip position and stem alignment. The groups of subjects were of comparable age, sex and Body Mass Index.

Results: Values for mean distance from canal centre were calculated, for the Exeter group this was 1.511 ± 1.226 and Tri-Taper group 0.778 ±. 0.748. This was statistically signiþcant (p=0.0059). In our Exeter series of results we have shown that 71% of stem tips had been inserted within 2mm of central, this compares with 94% in the Tri-Taper series. On the lateral radiographs of the Exeter series the mean posterior distance was 2.245 ± 1.316, the mean anterior distance was 1.068 ± 0.528. In the Tri-Taper series the mean posterior distance was 1.123 ± 0.926, the mean anterior distance was 1.057 ± 0.590. The difference between the two groups was not statistically signiþcant (p=0.054). The alignment results show that only 78% of stems are aligned neutrally compared with 91% of tri-taper stems (p= 0.0454).

Conclusion: These results are comparable with previous cannulated and Exeter stem studies. This conþrms that optimal distal stem position and stem alignment can be achieved by using a cannulated stem rather than the application of a distal centralising device.