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

10 YEAR MULTI-CENTRE EVALUATION OF THE CORMET HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY.



Abstract

Introduction: Hip resurfacing has become re-established in recent years as a viable option in younger, active individuals. The results of a multi-centre evaluation of the Cormet resurfacing device are presented.

Materials and Methods: Data has been entered from 1997 onwards from 5 centres, patients being selected as suitable by 8 individual surgeons. Pre and intraoperative details recorded including indications, patient details, implant used, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and surgical approach.

Results: A total of 781 procedures in 676 patients have been recorded (54% posterior approach, 40% antero-lateral, 6% Ganz approach). The mean follow-up is 2.5 years (0.1–9.7 yrs) and the mean postoperative HHS is 85.9 (range 25–100). The mean age at surgery was 54.2 years. 60% of implantations were on male patients. The principal diagnosis was; OA 87%, RA 5%, AVN, post-traumatic OA and DDH 2% each, Perthes 1% and the remainder 1%. It is thought likely that many cases of OA had many of the above-named pathologies as a precursor. The mean maximum flexion postoperatively was 98.6 degrees. Uncemented heads (a recent innovation) were used in 7%. Kaplan-Meier survivorship is 93% at 9 years. In the OA subgroup 3.3% have been revised, approximately equal numbers for femoral head collapse, dislocation and cup loosening, but the vast majority due to femoral neck fracture, which in turn was generally associated with the posterior approach.

Conclusions: The results of this cohort (which includes the learning period of the contributing surgeons) indicate highly satisfactory outcomes in terms of HHS and implant longevity. Sub-classification of cases into those presenting abnormal anatomy and those with ‘ordinary’ OA indicates better survivorship still in the latter group. The surgical challenge varies more with hip resurfacing than with standard hip arthroplasty and this should be considered when results of surgery are reviewed. The revision options are generally much simpler than after standard THR.

Correspondence should be addressed to Ms Larissa Welti, Scientific Secretary, EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH-8005 Zürich, Switzerland