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

EARLY RESULTS OF A HIP RESURFACING TRIAL



Abstract

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has become a popular treatment option for younger active patients. The early published results from designing surgeons/centers have been favourable. We undertook a prospective multi-center trial to determine the outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty at independent centers. The clinical, radiographic and functional results were assessed.

A prospective IRB approved study was initiated in July 2003 to assess the outcome of hip resurfacing arthroplasty using a contemporary design implant. (Conserve Plus - Wright Medical Technology) Disease specific (Harris Hip Score/WOMAC) and global (Rand self assessment index) outcome measures were used. Radiographs were reviewed for component position and migration as well as any signs of lysis or loosening. Complications and re-operations were recorded.

A total of one hundred and eighty-eight patients have been enrolled in the study to date. One hundred and four patients have a minimum one year follow-up and forty-six patients have a minimum two year follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Scores (pre-op, one year, two years) were fifty-five, eighty-nine and ninety-one. Mean WOMAC pain scores were forty-seven, ninety and ninety. Mean WOMAC stiffness scores were forty, seventy-eight and eighty-two. Mean WOMAC function scores were forty-six, eighty-seven and eighty. RAND physical function mean scores were thirty-three, seventy-six and seventy-six and the RAND physical limitations mean scores were nineteen, sixty-seven and seventy-five. Radiographic analysis showed average cup abduction to be forty-six degrees (range twenty-six to sixty-three). Average femoral stem position was one hundred and thiry-eight degrees (range one hundred and eighteen to one hundred and fifty-seven). Nine patients have been revised to date (4.8%). Four for acetabular loosening, two for neck fracture, one for femoral loosening, one for impingement and one for persistent pain. There have been eight other patients requiring re-operation without revision. Medical complications occurred in fifteen patients.

Early results have demonstrated a good return of function in patients with hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A high early revision rate (4.8%) was seen in our study. Technical factors appear to be the main contributor to the high early complication rate. Hip resurfacing is associated with a steep learning curve. We continue to utilise hip resurfacing in select patients but recommend caution for those who are new to the technique.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Cynthia Vezina, Communications Manager, COA, 4150-360 Ste. Catherine St. West, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada