MOM HIP RESURFACING: AN OPTION FOR RIGHT PATIENT AND SURGEON – OPPOSES

Abstract

Over the past 15 years metal on metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) has seen a spectacular resurgence in utilization followed by near abandonment of the procedure. A select group of surgeons still offer the procedure to a select group of patients suggesting that there are benefits of MOMHR over total hip arthroplasty (THA). This is problematic for the following reasons:

1. 1)

   MOMHR does not lead to increased survivorship. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the England and Wales National Joint Registry, from countries with high rates of utilization of MOMHR, both report significantly worse survivorship with MOMHR compared to all types of conventional THA. Risk factors for revision of resurfacing were older patients, females, smaller femoral head size, patients with developmental dysplasia, and certain implant designs.

2. 2)

   MOMHR is associated with the generation of metal ions that can have devastating effects in some patients. Cobalt and chromium ions generated from MOMHR can result in adverse local tissues reactions around the hip, sometimes with catastrophic consequences, as well as neurological deficits, skin rashes, and cardiomyopathy. It is unclear as to which patients are at risk for the generation of high ion levels and less clear with respect to the host response to these ions. The discriminative and predictive values of ion testing are still being determined. MOMHR subsequently require careful follow-up with limited tools to assess risk and pending problems.

3. 3)

   MOMHR is not less invasive. In order to deliver the femoral head for safe preparation and to access the acetabulum with the femoral head and neck in situ, significant dissection and retraction are required. The exposure issue is compounded as the procedure is most often performed in younger, larger males. Difficulty with exposure has been associated with an insult to the femoral head's blood supply that may lead to fracture and/or neck narrowing.

4. 4)

   Preservation of the femoral canal with MOMHR does not improve outcomes of revision. The perceived advantage of preserved femoral head and neck implies that a conversion of a MOMHR to total hip should convey survivorship similar to primary THA. However, this is not the case as confirmed by data from the AOANJRR demonstrating worse survivorship of revised resurfacings when compared to a primary total hip arthroplasty.

5. 5)

   MOMHR does not result in superior functional outcomes. Advocates for MOMHR often claim that the large femoral head and intact femoral neck in resurfacing results in a better functional outcome and therefore, a better quality of life and satisfaction when compared to a conventional THA. This, however, was not the case when gait speed, postural balance evaluations and functional tests were used in a randomised study of 48 patients, which failed to show an advantage of MOMHR over THA.

In conclusion, it is relatively straightforward to oppose and argue against the use of hip resurfacings as they have worse outcomes in all National Joint Registries, produce metal ions with significant clinical consequences, are more invasive, are difficult to revise with subsequent inferior outcomes when compared to a conventional primary THA, and do not provide better function. These adverse features come with a premium price when compared to a conventional THA.