Aims

There are limited published data detailing the volumetric material loss from tapers of conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Our aim was to address this by comparing the taper wear rates measured in an explanted cohort of the widely used Exeter THA with those measured in a group of metal-on-metal (MoM) THAs.

Aims

We sought to determine whether cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr) femoral stem tapers (trunnions) wear more than titanium (Ti) alloy stem tapers (trunnions) when used in a large diameter (LD) metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty system.

We present the clinical results and survivorship of consecutive 100 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings in 90 patients at a minimum follow-up of ten years. All procedures were carried out by an independent surgeon who commenced a prospective study in 1998. Patients were assessed clinically using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Short-Form 36, Harris hip score and University of California, Los Angeles activity score. Radiological analysis was performed by an independent observer and blood metal ion levels concentrations were measured at ten years post-operatively in 62 patients. The median acetabular component inclination was 46.2° (34° to 59°) and anteversion 11.0° (0° to 30°). The median chromium concentration in the unilateral group was 1.74 (0.41 to 15.23) and for the bilateral group was 2.98 (1.57 to 18.01). The equivalent values for cobalt were 1.67 (0.54 to 20.4) and 1.88 (1.38 to 19.32).

In total there were eight failures giving an overall survival at ten years of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 97.3). BHR in male patients had an improved survivorship of 94.6% (95% CI 89.4 to 100) compared with females at 84.6% (95% CI 70.7 to 98.5), but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.119). Four of the nine BHRs with a bearing diameter of 42 mm failed.

The overall results were consistent with data produced from other centres in that the clinical outcome of large male patients was extremely encouraging, whereas the survival of the smaller joints was less satisfactory.

We sought to establish the incidence of joint failure secondary to adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in a large, three surgeon, multicentre study involving 4226 hips with a follow-up of 10 to 142 months. Three implants were studied: the Articular Surface Replacement; the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing; and the Conserve Plus. Retrieved implants underwent analysis using a co-ordinate measuring machine to determine volumetric wear. There were 58 failures associated with ARMD. The median chromium and cobalt concentrations in the failed group were significantly higher than in the control group (p < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a failure rate in the patients with Articular Surface Replacement of 9.8% at five years, compared with < 1% at five years for the Conserve Plus and 1.5% at ten years for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing. Two ARMD patients had relatively low wear of the retrieved components. Increased wear from the metal-on-metal bearing surface was associated with an increased rate of failure secondary to ARMD. However, the extent of tissue destruction at revision surgery did not appear to be dose-related to the volumetric wear.

This study compared the demographic, clinical and patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement (THR) and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) carried out by a single surgeon. Patients completed a questionnaire that included the WOMAC, SF-36 scores and comorbid medical conditions. Data were collected before operation and one year after. The outcome scores were adjusted for age, gender, comorbid conditions and, at one year, for the pre-operative scores. There were 214 patients with a THR and 132 with a BHR. Patients with a BHR were significantly younger (49 vs 67 years, p < 0.0001), more likely to be male (68% vs 42% of THR, p < 0.0001) and had fewer comorbid conditions (1.3 vs 2.0, p < 0.0001). Before operation there was no difference in WOMAC and SF-36 scores, except for function, in which patients awaiting THR were worse than those awaiting a BHR.

At one year patients with a BHR reported significantly better WOMAC pain scores (p = 0.04) and in all SF-36 domains (p < 0.05). Patients undergoing BHR report a significantly greater improvement in general health compared with those with a THR.

Resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The majority of these patients are younger than 55 years of age, and in this group the key benefits include conservation of femoral bone stock and the potential reduction in the rate of dislocation afforded by the larger resurfacing head. Early aseptic loosening is well recognised in patients younger than 55 years of age, and proponents of resurfacing believe that the improved wear characteristics of the metal-on-metal bearing may improve the long-term survival of this implant. There has been some concern, however, that resurfacing may not be conservative of acetabular bone.

We compared a series of 33 consecutive patients who had a hybrid total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented acetabular component and a cemented femoral implant, with 35 patients undergoing a Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. We compared the diameter of the implanted acetabulum in both groups and, because they were not directly comparable, we corrected for patient size by measuring the diameter of the contralateral femoral head. The data were analysed using unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

There was a significantly larger acetabulum in the Birmingham arthroplasty group (mean diameter 56.6 mm vs 52.0 mm; p < 0.001). However, this group had a significantly larger femoral head diameter on the contralateral side (p = 0.03). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant difference between the mean size of the acetabular component implanted in the two operations. The greatest difference in the size of acetabulum was in those patients with a larger diameter of the femoral head. This study shows that more bone is removed from the acetabulum in hip resurfacing than during hybrid total hip arthroplasty, a difference which is most marked in larger patients.

Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired t-tests.

There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA.