Aims

As our population ages, the number of octogenarians who will require a total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises. In a value-based system where operative outcomes are linked to hospital payments, it is necessary to assess the outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of elective, primary THA in patients ≥ 80 years old to those aged < 80.

We present the early clinical and radiological results of Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) resurfacings in 214 hips (192 patients) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 57). The mean age of the patients was 56 years (28 to 74) and 85 hips (40%) were in 78 women.

The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 (11 to 81) to 95 (27 to 100) at two years and the mean University of California, Los Angeles activity score from 3.9 (1 to 10) to 7.4 (2 to 10) in the same period. Narrowing of the neck (to a maximum of 9%) was noted in 124 of 209 hips (60%). There were 12 revisions (5.6%) involving four (1.9%) early fractures of the femoral neck and two (0.9%) episodes of collapse of the femoral head secondary to avascular necrosis. Six patients (2.8%) had failure related to metal wear debris. The overall survival for our series was 93% (95% confidence interval 80 to 98) and 89% (95% confidence interval 82 to 96) for hips with acetabular components smaller than 56 mm in diameter.

The ASR implant has a lower diametrical clearance and a subhemispherical acetabular component when compared with other more frequently implanted metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. These changes may contribute to the higher failure rate than in other series, compared with other designs. Given our poor results with the small components we are no longer implanting the smaller size.

The orientation of the acetabular component is influenced not only by the orientation at which the surgeon implants the component, but also the orientation of the pelvis at the time of implantation. Hence, the orientation of the pelvis at set-up and its movement during the operation, are important. During 67 hip replacements, using a validated photogrammetric technique, we measured how three surgeons orientated the patient’s pelvis, how much the pelvis moved during surgery, and what effect these had on the final orientation of the acetabular component. Pelvic orientation at set-up, varied widely (mean (± 2, standard deviation (sd))): tilt 8° (2sd ±32), obliquity –4° (2sd ±12), rotation –8° (2sd ±14). Significant differences in pelvic positioning were detected between surgeons (p < 0.001). The mean angular movement of the pelvis between set-up and component implantation was 9° (sd 6). Factors influencing pelvic movement included surgeon, approach (posterior >  lateral), procedure (hip resurfacing > total hip replacement) and type of support (p < 0.001). Although, on average, surgeons achieved their desired acetabular component orientation, there was considerable variability (2sd ±16) in component orientation. We conclude that inconsistency in positioning the patient at set-up and movement of the pelvis during the operation account for much of the variation in acetabular component orientation. Improved methods of positioning and holding the pelvis are required.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:876–83.