Thresholds for operative eligibility based on body mass index (BMI) alone may restrict patient access to the benefits of arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between BMI and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine how many patients would have been denied improvements in PROMs if BMI cut-offs were to be implemented. A prospective cohort of 3,449 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. The following one-year PROMs were evaluated: hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) pain, HOOS Physical Function Shortform (PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity, Veterans Rand-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (VR-12 MCS). Positive predictive values for failure to improve and the number of patients denied surgery in order to avoid a failed improvement were calculated for each PROM at different BMI cut-offs.Aims
Methods
Hip resurfacing has been proposed as an alternative
to traditional total hip arthroplasty in young, active patients.
Much has been learned following the introduction of metal-on-metal resurfacing
devices in the 1990s. The triad of a well-designed device, implanted
accurately, in the correct patient has never been more critical
than with these implants. Following Food and Drug Administration approval in 2006, we studied
the safety and effectiveness of one hip resurfacing device (Birmingham
Hip Resurfacing) at our hospital in a large, single-surgeon series.
We report our early to mid–term results in 1333 cases followed for
a mean of 4.3 years (2 to 5.7) using a prospective, observational
registry. The mean patient age was 53.1 years (12 to 84); 70% were
male and 91% had osteoarthritis. Complications were few, including
no dislocations, no femoral component loosening, two femoral neck
fractures (0.15%), one socket loosening (0.08%), three deep infections
(0.23%), and three cases of metallosis (0.23%). There were no destructive
pseudotumours. Overall survivorship at up to 5.7 years was 99.2%. Aseptic survivorship
in males under the age of 50 was 100%. We believe this is the largest
United States series of a single surgeon using a single resurfacing
system. Cite this article:
Dislocation is one of the most common causes
of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement
and to treat it, the causes must first be understood. Patient factors
include age greater than 70 years, medical comorbidities, female
gender, ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors,
and patient education. Surgeon factors include the annual quantity
of procedures and experience, the surgical approach, adequate restoration
of femoral offset and leg length, component position, and soft-tissue
or bony impingement. Implant factors include the design of the head
and neck region, and so-called skirts on longer neck lengths. There
should be offset choices available in order to restore soft-tissue
tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed
may result in impingement and dislocation. Late dislocation may
result from polyethylene wear, soft-tissue destruction, trochanteric
or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection. Understanding
the causes of hip dislocation facilitates prevention in a majority
of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification
of patients with a high offset in whom inadequate restoration of
offset will reduce soft-tissue tension and abductor efficiency.
Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement.
Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur
early, and are preventable with proper instructions. Cite this article:
