header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

PRIMARY CERAMIC-ON-CERAMIC THR VERSUS METAL-ON-METAL HIP RESURFACING IN ACTIVE YOUNG PATIENTS



Abstract

The difference in outcome after uncemented ceramic-on-ceramic total hip and metal-on-metal resurfacing is looked at in comparable patient groups. Theoretical advantages in resurfacing are less bone resection, normal femoral loading, avoidance of stress shielding and restoration of normal anatomy. In addition, reduced risk of dislocation, less leg lengthening and easier revision should convince us to perform metal-on-metal resurfacing. These advantages of resurfacing, the subjective “better feeling” and having a more “normal” joint is illustrated by objective proof with functional scores and activity.

The first 250 cases of 1067 (September 1998 –March 2004) performed Birmingham Hip resurfacings (MMT, UK) (follow up 2–5 years, mean age 49.54) were scored clinically and functionally. In the same period (July 1996 – September 2003) 164 ceramic-on-ceramic Ancafit total uncemented prostheses (Wright Medical, US) were implanted inthe same age and activity group as the resurfacings. The first group of 126 patients (follow up 2 – 6 years, mean age 46.76) was compared with the resurfacing group. All the data were collected intra operatively and postoperatively, mostly in a prospective way.

At the most recent follow-up there was a significant statistical difference in Harris Hip Scores (global and total), and activity function between the 2 types of pros-theses. Resurfacing scored a Harris Hip Total of 97.9 (ceramic THA 92.1). Of the resurfacing patients 60.71 had a strenuous activity (ceramic THA 30.43). Dislocation rate in resurfacing group was 0.4% (ceramic THA 3%).

The early clinical results in the group of metal-on-metal resurfacing are very satisfactory with Harris and PMA scores indicating early clinical success. The high percentage of strenuous activity in this young patient group satisfies the expectations of the resurfacing. The difference with a normal uncemented hip is stated with a better outcome in Harris Hip Scores and a better activity level.

Correspondence should be addressed to Richard Komistek, PhD, International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. E-mail: ista@pacbell.net