Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is being offered as a viable alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA). For very young patients (under 30 years old), THA achieves fair results but with high revision and complication rates. This retrospective study was designed to evaluate the results of HRA performed in patients under 30 years old with a long follow-up. During the inclusion period (2007–2021), we collected in a single operator database, all HRA performed in patients under 30 with a minimum follow up of 2 years. 103 HRA in 93 patients (77 male / 16 females; a mean age at operation 27.7 years (18 to 29.9)) were included. The two mean preoperative diagnoses were osteoarthritis in 54 HRA (52.5%) and DDH or hip dislocation in 19.4% (20 cases). No patient was lost to follow-up and 3 patients (5 HRA) deceased. There were 2 revisions (one for femoral aseptic loosening and one infection recurrence (pediatric osteoarthritis)). No dislocation and adverse wear-related failures were found. At a mean follow-up of 10.4 years (2–17.4), mean UCLA activity and Oxford Hip score improved respectively from 5.4 (1 to 7) and 39.9 (25–55) pre-operatively to 7.9 (3 to 10) and 15.8 (12–34) post-operatively (p<0.001). Mean Harris hip score increased from 41.6 (22–63) to 91.8 (72–100) (p<0.001). There were no radiological cases exhibiting lysis while two cases displayed limited partial radiolucency around the femoral stem. This cohort of HRA performed under 30 is the longest follow-up ever reported in the literature. Despite a challenging cohort of patients, HRA exceeds the stricter NICE survivorship criteria. HRA remains an effective treatment with excellent functional outcomes and a very low rate of complications.
The hip-shelf procedure is less often indicated since the introduction of peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO). Although this procedure does not modify pelvic shape, its influence on subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not known. We performed a case-control study comparing THA after hip-shelf surgery and THA in dysplastic hips to determine: 1) its influence on THA survival, 2) technical issues and complications related to the former procedure. We performed a retrospective case-control study comparing 61 THA cases done after hip-shelf versus 63 THA in case-matched dysplastic hips (control group). The control group was matched according to sex, age, BMI, ASA and Charnley score, and bearing type. We compared survival and function (Harris, Oxford-12), complications at surgery, rate of bone graft at cup insertion, and post-operative complications. The 13-year survival rates for any reason did not differ: 89% ± 3.2% in THA after hip shelf versus 83% ± 4.5% in the controls (p = 0.56). Functional scores were better in the control group (Harris 90 ± 10, Oxford 41/48) than in the hip-shelf group (Harris 84.7 ± 14.7, Oxford 39/48) (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04). Operative time, bleeding and rate of acetabular bone grafting (1.6 hip-shelf versus 9.5 control) were not different (p > 0.05). Postoperative complication rates did not differ: one transient fibular nerve palsy and two dislocations (3.2%) in the hip-shelf group versus four dislocations in the control group (6.3%). The hip-shelf procedure does not compromise the results of a subsequent THA in dysplastic hips. This procedure is simple and may keep its indications versus PAO in severely subluxed hips or in case of severe femoral head deformity.
Cementless distally locked stems were introduced in revision hip arthroplasty (RTHA) in the late 1980s to deal with severe femoral bone loss. These implants have not been assessed over the long-term, particularly the influence of the design and porous coating. Therefore we performed a retrospective case-control study at a minimum 10-years' follow-up comparing the straight Ultime™ stem with 1/3 porous coating versus the anatomical Linea™ stem with 2/3 proximal coating with hydroxyapatite. We performed a single-center case-control study measuring survival, function based the Harris and Oxford-12 scores, and rate of thigh pain. X-rays were done at regular intervals and at follow-up. No femoral bone graft was used at insertion. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex and follow-up (mean 12.2 years in Ultime and 10.8 years in Linea cohorts); however they differed in the severity of bone loss therefore the results were adjusted according to this variable. Ten-year survival considering revision for any reason was 63.5% ± 5.4 for Ultime and 91.6% ± 2.7 for Linea (p < 0.001). Merle d'Aubigné scores and Oxford-12 were higher in the Linea group 82.9 ± 12.4 and 26.3/48, respectively, versus 69.5 ± 16 and 21/48 in the Ultime group (p < 0.001). Thigh pain was observed in 30% of Ultime cases versus 3% of Linea cases. Bone reconstruction measured via cortical thickness was better in the Linea group and correlated to metaphyseal filling at insertion. This study confirms the benefits of using of locked stems in RTHA with severe bone loss. Better metaphyseal filling and optimized porous coating help to minimize thigh pain and the revision rate.
