It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up. Patients undergoing Birmingham Hip Resurfacing completed the Veteran’s Rand 36 (VR-36), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at two years and a minimum of three years. A change in score was assessed against minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patient factors and deterioration in PASS status between follow-ups.Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to report the procedure survival and patient-reported outcomes in a consecutive series of patients <50yrs at the time of hip arthroplasty with a metal-on-metal hip resurfacing system who have progressed to a minimum of 10yrs follow-up. Patients presenting for treatment of degenerative conditions of the hip electing to undergo hip resurfacing were included in a clinical registry (N=226 patients; 238 procedures). Procedure survival was confirmed by crosschecking to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and comparing to all procedures by other surgeons nationwide. Kaplan-meier survival curves with 95% confidence intervals were constructed, while patient-reported outcome measures were compared with t-tests and postoperative scores assessed with anchor analysis to age and gender-matched normative data. At mean follow up of 12 years, six cases were revised with a cumulative survival rate of 96.8% (95%CI 94.2–99.4) at 15 years. Majority of revisions were early (<3yrs) and occurred in females (N=4). Patient-reported general health, disease state, hip function and activity level maintained large improvements beyond 10 years post-implantation and were equal to or exceeded age and gender-matched normative data. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in males and females aged <50 years at time of surgery demonstrated a high rate of cumulative survival beyond 10 years follow up. The results demonstrate excellent outcomes in this age group.
The Birmingham hip resurfacing (Smith & Nephew, Tennessee) (BHR) has been used in younger more active patients. We report on our experience of 206 BHR procedures in patients aged 50 years or less with a minimum ten year follow-up. Clinical outcome scores, body mass index (BMI), gender and age were analysed to investigate resurfacing outcomes. 200 patients (158 males and 42 females) with an average operation age of 43.33 years (SD ±5.66) were investigated. There were 6 bilateral procedures The mean follow-up period was 12.44 years (SD ±1.71). The arthroplasties were completed between April 1999 and December 2002 by one surgeon. Data and outcome measurements were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. We evaluated Harris Hip Scores, Short Form-36 (SF-36v2) Scores, Tegner Activity Score Scores and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Scores (WOMAC) comparatively at preoperative, six month and yearly intervals.Aim
Methods
Adverse tissue reactions have been a concern in relation to metal components, particularly in hip replacements. We look at a possible correlation between hip joint effusion and metal ion levels. 56 patients,(42M, 14F) agreed to the study. All had metal-on-mental arthroplasties. Average age was 64.2 (SD 9.8). All patients were asymptomatic. Ultrasound examination performed by one ultrasonographer, using a Sonosite M-Turbo machine with a C60X/5-2 MHz transducer. Cobalt levels were assessed using an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. Chromium levels were assessed using a graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometer.Aim
Materials and methods
There has recently been an increase in the number of hip replacement procedures performed through an anterior approach. Every procedure has a risk profile, and in the case of a new procedure or technique it is important to investigate the incidence of complications. The aim of this study is to identify the complications encountered in the first 100 patients treated with the minimally invasive anterior approach. This is a case series of the first 100 hips treated and were assessed for complications. These were classified according to the severity and outcome [1]. The 100 hip comprised of 98 patients; 46 males and 52 females with an average operation age on 70.1 (±9.38) years. There were 2 bilateral procedures. Specific patient selection criteria were used. All complications occurred within one month of surgery. Complications such as fracture, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), cup malposition, femoral stem malposition, retained screw, excessive acetabular reaming and skin numbness were noted. Complications associated with fracture were characterized as either periprosthetic or trochanteric. Clinical outcome scores of SF36v2, WOMAC, Harris Hip and Tegner activity score were analysed at pre-operative, 6 months, 12 months 24 months and 36 months intervals. A total of 13 early complications occurred. Of these 13 complications the most common complications were trochanteric fracture, 3 instances (3.00%), periprosthetic fracture, 2 (2.00%), DVT, 2 (2.00%), numbness, 2 (2.00%) and loosening. Other complications recorded were cup malposition, 1 (1.00%), femoral stem malpositon, 1 (1.00%), retained screw, 1 (1.00%) and excessive acetabular reaming, 1 (1.00%). All fractures occurred in patients over the age of 60 years. Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed between all clinical outcomes measures pre-operatively and postoperatively (6, 12, 24 and 36 months). The unfamiliarity of the approach, however, increased operating time, and exposure problems, lead to trochanteric fracture.
Dissatisfaction with the posterior approach to total hip replacement has led to the anterior approach being adopted with enthusiasm in some areas. We aim to assess any difference between the 2 approaches and if so, the magnitude of this difference.Introduction
Objectives
