Hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Figures & data

Table 2. General study data

Author	Follow-up	Mean age	Women (%)	Men (%)	Complication	Revision
Khan et al. (2009)	mean 6 (5–8) years	median 51 (16–88)	40	60	4%	29 (4.4%)
Amstutz et al. (2008)	mean 5.6 (1.1–11) years	50 (14–78)	25.3	74.4	8.1%	34 (3.4%)
Heilpern et al. (2008)	mean 71 (60–93) months	54 (35–75)	42	58	4%	4 (3.5%)
Lavigne et al. (2008)	minimum 1 year	48 (23–63)	35/28 ^b	65/72 ^b	unknown	unknown
Steffen et al. (2008)	mean 4.2 (2.0–7.6) years	52 (17–82)	41	59	3.8%	23 (3.8%)
Witzleb et al. (2008)	median 24 (2–66) months	49 (15–69)	43	57	3.4%	2 (0.8%)
Naal et al. (2007)	mean 23.5 (9–40) months	53	–	–	unknown	unknown
Narvani et al. (2006)	minimum 6 months	unknown	–	–	unknown	unknown
Pollard et al. (2006)	mean 61 (52–71) months	50 (18–67)	25/22 ^b	75/78 ^b	11(21%)/7(11%) ^b	1 (1.9%)/4 (6.3%) ^b
Back et al. (2005)	median 36 (25–52) months	52 (18–82)	35	65	10% ^a (5.6%)	1 (0.43%)
McMinn et al. (1996)	mean 8.3 (1–19) months	unknown	–	–	unknown	0

^a superficial wound infections included.

^b THA/HRA

Table 3. Results of clinical scores

Author	Preoperative			Follow-up
	UCLA score	HHS	Other scores	UCLA score	HHS	Other scores
Khan et al. (2009)	47				95 (84–100) 1-yr88 (77–100) 8-yr	DAS 6 (5–6)95% extremely, satisfied at 7 years
Amstutz et al. (2008)	3.6 (SD 1.2) pain;6.4 (SD 1.4) walking;5.8 (SD 1.6) function;4.7 (SD 1.5) activity			9.4 (SD 0.9) pain;9.6 (SD 0.9) walking;9.5 (SD 1.2) function;7.5 (SD 1.6) activity
Heilpern et al. (2008)	3.9 (1–10)		OHS 41.9 (16–57)	7.5 (4–10)	96.4 (53–100)	OHS 15.4 (12–49)
Lavigne et al. (2008)			GAS HRA 5.8GAS THA 5.1	HRA 7.1THA 6.75		GAS HRA 17.9GAS THA 12.4WOMAC HRA 8.1WOMAC THA 9.8
Steffen et al. (2008)				6.6 (SD 1.9)		OHS 16.1 (SD 7.7)
Witzleb et al. (2008)		51 (44–60)			96 (85–100)
Naal et al. (2007)			4.8 (SD 2.3) different sports			4.6 (SD 1.9)sports (NS)85% excellent/good
Narvani et al. (2006)		48 (30–67)	65% sports participation		92 (30–97)	92% sportsparticipation
Pollard et al. (2006)				THA 7 (3–10)HRA 9 (4–10)		Sports: THA 33.3%HRA 73.6%EQ-VAS: THA 69.3HRA 82.3
Back et al. (2005)		CA 63.9 (8–93);CB 56.2 (18–82);CC 64.4 (30–98)	SF12 31.1; 58.6SF12 30.3; 60.5SF12 31.5; 52.2		97.7 (60–100)99.4 (90–100)85.5 (30–100)	SF12 54.1; 56.9SF12 54.1; 57.7SF12 48.2; 55.9
McMinn et al. (1996)			Charnley scores:Pain 3Mobility 3.1Walking 3.3			Pain 5.4Mobility 5.4Walking 5.4

short-legendFigure 2.

short-legendFigure 3.

Khan M, Kuiper JH, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson JB. Birmingham Hip Arthroplasty Five to Eight Years of Prospective Multicenter Results. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24(7):1044-50.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus. J Arthroplasty 2008; (Suppl 1) 23 (6]: 36-43.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Heilpern GN, Shah NN, Fordyce MJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a series of 110 consecutive hips with a minimum five-year clinical and radiological follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2008; 90(9):1137-42.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA. Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2008; 94(4):361-7.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Steffen RT, Pandit HP, Palan J, Beard DJ, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW, Gill HS. The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2008; 90(4):436-41.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Witzleb WC, Arnold M, Krummenauer F, Knecht A, Ranisch H, Günther KP. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: short-term clinical and radiographic outcome. Eur J Med Res 2008; 13(1):39-46.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Naal FD, Maffiuletti NA, Munzinger U, Hersche O. Sports after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35; 705- ??.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Narvani AA, Tsiridis E, Nwaboku HC, Bajekal RA. Sporting activity following Birmingham hip resurfacing. Int J Sports Med 2006; 27:505-7.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five to seven year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2006; 88(5):592-600.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings, an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2005; 87(3):324-9.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop 1996; (329) (Suppl): S89-98.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar