Objectives

Modern metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), while achieving good results with well-orientated, well-designed components in ideal patients, is contraindicated in women, men with head size under 50 mm, or metal hypersensitivity. These patients currently have no access to the benefits of HRA. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) has demonstrated clinical success in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and, when used in HRA, potentially reduces metal ion-related sequelae. We report the early performance of HRA using a direct-to-bone cementless mono-bloc XLPE component coupled with a cobalt-chrome femoral head, in the patient group for whom HRA is currently contraindicated.

Aims

We investigated whether blood metal ion levels could effectively identify patients with bilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implants who have adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD).

We report the long-term survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) in patients aged < 50 years at operation, and explore the factors affecting survival. Between 1997 and 2006, a total of 447 BHRs were implanted in 393 patients (mean age 41.5 years (14.9 to 49.9)) by one designing surgeon. The mean follow-up was 10.1 years (5.2 to 14.7), with no loss to follow-up. In all, 16 hips (3.6%) in 15 patients were revised, giving an overall cumulative survival of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.7 to 98.3) at ten years and 94.1% (95% CI 84.9 to 97.3) at 14 years. Using aseptic revision as the endpoint, the survival for men with primary osteoarthritis (n = 195) was 100% (95% CI 100 to 100) at both ten years and 14 years, and in women with primary osteoarthritis (n = 109) it was 96.1% (95% CI 90.1 to 99.9) at ten years and 91.2% (95% CI 68.6 to 98.7) at 14 years. Female gender (p = 0.047) and decreasing femoral head size (p = 0.044) were significantly associated with an increased risk of revision. The median Oxford hip score (OHS, modified as a percentage with 100% indicating worst outcome) at last follow-up was 4.2% (46 of 48; interquartile range (IQR) 0% to 24%) and the median University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score was 6.0 (IQR 5 to 8). Men had significantly better OHS (p = 0.02) and UCLA scores (p = 0.01) than women. The BHR provides excellent survival and functional results in men into the second decade, with good results achieved in appropriately selected women.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1172–7.

We report the survival, radiological and functional outcomes of a single surgeon series of his first 144 consecutive Birmingham hip resurfacing procedures (130 patients) at a minimum of ten years. There were ten revisions during this time. Although no patients were lost to follow-up some did not complete the scoring assessment or undergo radiological assessment at ten years.

The ten-year survival for male patients was 98.0% (95% confidence interval 95.2 to 100). The ten-year survival for the total cohort with aseptic revision as the endpoint was 95.5% (95% confidence interval 91.8 to 99.0) and including revisions for sepsis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval 89.2 to 97.6). The median modified Oxford hip score at ten years was 4.2% (interquartile range 0 to 19) and the median University of California, Los Angeles score was 7.0 (interquartile range 5.0 to 8.0).

This study confirms the midterm reports that metal-on-metal hip resurfacing using the Birmingham Hip provides a durable alternative to total hip replacement, particularly in younger male patients wishing to maintain a high level of function, with low risk of revision for at least ten years.

Introduction: Patients suitable for hip resurfacing are often young, active, in employment and have bilateral disease. One-stage bilateral total hip replacement has been demonstrated to be as safe as a two-stage procedure and more cost effective. The aim of this study was to compare the results of one-stage with two stage bilateral hip resurfacing.

Methods: Between July 1994 and August 2006 a consecutive series of 93 patients underwent bilateral hip resurfacing within a year. 34 patients in the one-stage group. 44 patients in the two-stage group. The age, gender, diagnosis, ASA grade, total operative time, blood transfusion requirements, medical and surgical complications, length of stay, revision and costs were recorded.

Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, and ASA grade between the two groups. There were 4 minor complications in the one stage group and 5 in the two-stage group. All complications were of a short-term nature. There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion requirements. There was a significantly longer total mean hospital stay of 5 days (95% c.i. 4.0–6.9) for the two-stage group. No patients had undergone a revision. The hospital received a mean of £6338 per patient for the one-stage group and a mean of £9726 per patient for the two-stage group. However, this included a longer total hospital stay, two anaesthetics and on average two extra out-patient appointments.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates no detrimental effects when performing a one-stage bilateral hip resurfacing in comparison to a two-stage procedure. The advantages of the one-stage procedure are that total hospital stay is reduced by a mean of 5 days and the cost is reduced by a mean of £3388 per patient, a 35% reduction of the cost of a two-stage procedure. These benefits do not appear to come at the cost of increase complications.

Patients considered suitable for total hip resurfacing arthroplasty often have bilateral disease. The peri-operative complications, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, outcome and costs in patients undergoing one-stage bilateral total hip resurfacing were compared with a group of patients undergoing a two-stage procedure. A total of 92 patients were included in the study, of which 37 (40%) had a one-stage and 55 (60%) had a two-stage resurfacing. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade between the groups (p = 0.31, p = 0.23, p = 0.13, respectively). There were three systemic complications in the one-stage group (8.1%) and one in the two-stage group (1.8% of patients; 0.9% of procedures). There was no significant difference in the complication rate (p = 0.72) or the transfusion requirements (p = 0.32) between the two groups. The one-stage group had a reduced total hospital stay of five days (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 6.9; p < 0.001), reduced length of time to completion of all surgery of five months (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.3; p < 0.001), and the reduced cost was 35% less than that of a two-stage procedure. However, the total anaesthetic time was significantly longer for the one-stage group (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval 31 to 52).

This study demonstrates that consideration should be given to one-stage surgery for patients with bilateral symptomatic disease suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. A one-stage procedure appears to have benefits for both the patient and the hospital without additional complications.

We report the survival at five years of 144 consecutive metal-on-metal resurfacings of the hip implanted between August 1997 and May 1998. Failure was defined as revision of either the acetabular or femoral component for any reason during the study period. The survival at the end of five years was 98% overall and 99% for aseptic revisions only. The mean age of the patients at implantation was 52.1 years.

Three femoral components failed during the first two years, two were infected and one fractured. A single stage revision was carried out in each case. No other revisions were performed or are impending. No patients were lost to follow-up. Four died from unrelated causes during the study period.

This study confirms that hip resurfacing using a metal-on-metal bearing of known provenance can provide a solution in the medium term for the younger more active adult who requires surgical intervention for hip disease.

Introduction: We have investigated the accuracy of a serological marker to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening of Total Hip Replacements (THR). We present the preliminary results of our on-going prospective study.

Methods: After obtaining Ethical Committee approval, 46 patients were collected in 3 groups; “control” primary THR, revision THR for aseptic loosening, and revision THR for infection. Serum IgG responses to an exocellular bacterial antigen (Lipid S) were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results: Our results show that the test can accurately differentiate between the patients with infected joint replacements and the control group. The test, to date, has a specificity of 93% and a sensitivity of 100%.

Clinical Relevance: This simple and cheap test can reliably assist in the accurate evaluation of a painful hip arthroplasty, and planning for revision surgery. It will also be useful in the management of patients in whom the microbiology results are either negative or based on a single isolate of an organism, which may be either a contaminant or a possible pathogen. This, inturn, would have implications on financial costs and the optimum use of available resources.

Coagulase-negative staphylococci produce an exocellular glycolipid antigen which has potential as a serological marker of infection in bone. The value of this newly detected antigen was investigated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 15 patients with culture-proven infection of prostheses caused by Gram-positive bacteria. The antigen was purified by gel-permeation chromatography from the culture supernatants of coagulase-negative staphylococci grown in a chemically defined medium.

There were significant differences (p < 0.0001) between the serum IgG and IgM levels in patients with infection due to Gram-positive staphylococci and those of a control group of 32 patients with no infection. The ELISA test, which has potential for the diagnosis of infection, may be valuable in distinguishing between staphylococcal infection around prostheses and aseptic loosening.