Patients from a randomised trial on resurfacing
hip arthroplasty (RHA) (n = 36, 19 males; median age 57 years, 24
to 65) comparing a conventional 28 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty
(MoM THA) (n = 28, 17 males; median age 59 years, 37 to 65) and
a matched control group of asymptomatic patients with a 32 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene
(CoP) THA (n = 33, 18 males; median age 63 years, 38 to 71) were
cross-sectionally screened with metal artefact reducing sequence-MRI
(MARS-MRI) for pseudotumour formation at a median of 55 months (23
to 72) post-operatively. MRIs were scored by consensus according
to three different classification systems for pseudotumour formation. Clinical scores were available for all patients and metal ion
levels for MoM bearing patients. Periprosthetic lesions with a median volume of 16 mL (1.5 to
35.9) were diagnosed in six patients in the RHA group (17%), one
in the MoM THA group (4%) and six in the CoP group (18%). The classification
systems revealed no clear differences between the groups. Solid
lesions (n = 3) were exclusively encountered in the RHA group. Two patients
in the RHA group and one in the MoM THA group underwent a revision
for pseudotumour formation. There was no statistically significant
relationship between clinical scoring, metal ion levels and periprosthetic
lesions in any of the groups. Periprosthetic fluid collections are seen on MARS-MRI after conventional
CoP THA and RHA and may reflect a soft-tissue collection or effusion. Currently available MRI classification systems seem to score
these collections as pseudotumours, causing an-overestimatation
of the incidence of pseudotumours. Cite this article:
It is accepted that resurfacing hip replacement
preserves the bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur better than total
hip replacement (THR). However, no studies have investigated any
possible difference on the acetabular side. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 39 patients were randomised
into two groups to receive either a resurfacing or a THR and were
followed for two years. One patient’s resurfacing subsequently failed,
leaving 19 patients in each group. Resurfaced replacements maintained proximal femoral BMD and,
compared with THR, had an increased bone mineral density in Gruen
zones 2, 3, 6, and particularly zone 7, with a gain of 7.5% (95%
confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 12.5) compared with a loss of 14.6%
(95% CI 7.6 to 21.6). Resurfacing replacements maintained the BMD
of the medial femoral neck and increased that in the lateral zones
between 12.8% (95% CI 4.3 to 21.4) and 25.9% (95% CI 7.1 to 44.6). On the acetabular side, BMD was similar in every zone at each
point in time. The mean BMD of all acetabular regions in the resurfaced
group was reduced to 96.2% (95% CI 93.7 to 98.6) and for the total
hip replacement group to 97.6% (95% CI 93.7 to 101.5) (p = 0.4863).
A mean total loss of 3.7% (95% CI 1.0 to 6.5) and 4.9% (95% CI 0.8
to 9.0) of BMD was found above the acetabular component in W1 and
10.2% (95% CI 0.9 to 19.4) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 14.4) medial
to the implant in W2 for resurfaced replacements and THRs respectively.
Resurfacing resulted in a mean loss of BMD of 6.7% (95% CI 0.7 to
12.7) in W3 but the BMD inferior to the acetabular component was
maintained in both groups. These results suggest that the ability of a resurfacing hip replacement
to preserve BMD only applies to the femoral side.
