Introduction: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is currently recommended for younger, active patients with high expectations but information about outcomes is limited. Reports concentrate on wear, fracture rates and radiographic appearance, rather than function. Studies that report function do not describe rehabilitation protocols. This data is important to discussions about likely outcomes and restrictions prior to consent and to fully evaluate HRA.

Methods: Consecutive Conserve HRA operations were reviewed 1 year post-surgery. Function was assessed using 3 validated questionnaires; the OHS (Oxford Hip Score), HOOS (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and UCLA Activity Scale. Complications, pain, ROM, muscle strength, single leg stand, walking and stair climbing ability were recorded.

Results: 125 HRA were reviewed (68 right, 57 left hips) in 120 patients (71 male, 49 female) of mean age 56 years. 86.7% recorded no complications, but 20% had pain at 3 months. The median OHS was 15, median UCLA 7 (active) and mean HOOS 82.78%. Operated hip flexors, extensors and abductors were weaker (p=0.000) and hip flexion ROM a mean 94.46 ± 12.71 (55–120) degrees. For 25% walking was limited, 7.6% needed a stick and 10% a stair rail. The OHS correlated with HOOS pain subscale (r=0.812, p=0.000), flexion ROM (r=0.426, p=0.000), hip extensor (r=0.359, p=0.000) and abductor (r=0.424, p=0.000) strength. Pain at 3 months correlated with the HOOS pain subscale (p=0.000, r= 0.503).

Discussion: Although outcomes were generally good with few complications, high levels of function and activity 25% had poor outcomes; with pain, restricted hip flexion, decreased strength, limited walking and functional problems, particularly putting on socks. Pain present at 3 months was associated with pain and worse function at 1 year. It is postulated this sub-optimal recovery may be related to current rehabilitation protocols adopted from THA and not tailored to HRA.

The study was designed to compare the clinical performance of an Alumina ceramic acetabular bearing to that of a polyethylene bearing in a cementless hip couple.

The study group consisted of 15 surgeons who performed 308 total hip replacements (297 patients) between January 29, 1998 and February 1, 2000. All patients received a porous coated cementless titanium stem with an Alumina ceramic 28 mm or 32 mm head. Patients were randomized to receive a porous titanium acetabular shell with either a polyethylene or Alumina cup liner. There were 164 Alumina cups and 144 polyethylene cups. The mean age was 57.3 years and consisted of 50% males and 50% females. The preoperative diagnoses were: osteoarthritis 69.8%, avascular necrosis 19.5 %, post traumatic arthritis 2.9 %, inflammatory arthritis 3.9% and other 3.9%. The mean follow up was 12 months. The longest follow up was 38 months.

The Harris Hip Score was good and excellent in 86% of the control patients and 87% of the study patients. There has been 100% follow up and survivorship.

There were two reoperations for recurrent dislocations in each group. There were no Alumina component fractures, no progressive radiolucencies and no evidence of rapid wear.

In the short term follow-up between 12 and 38 months, there do not appear to be any differences between the patients with a bearing couple consisting of Alumina on plastic with those consisting of Alumina on Alumina. There have been no catastrophic failures of the ceramic components. The Alumina/Alumina bearing couple for total hip arthroplasty appears to be an excellent alternative bearing, providing the advantage of improved long term wear and a reduced incidence of polyethylene induced osteolysis.