Long-term results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 65 years of age or older

Abstract

Background:

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MMHRA) is typically used in young and active patients because they have the most to gain from this bone-preserving procedure. However, there is very little long-term data on the performance of MMHRA in patients 65 years of age or older because of the efficacy of conventional total hip arthroplasty in this patient population.

Methods:

109 patients (124 hips) age ⩾65 years were treated with Conserve Plus MMHRA. There were 83 male and 26 female patients. Their mean age at surgery was 69.5 (range 65–83) years. UCLA hip scores, SF-12 quality of life score were collected at follow-up visits. Radiographic and survivorship analyses were performed.

Results:

SF-12 scores and UCLA scores were maintained over time except for a small decrease in activity. 4 patients underwent revision surgery. The 15-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the cohort was 93.7%. All revisions surgeries were successful at a mean follow-up time of 113 (range 30–218) months. Unusual radiographic findings from our previous publication did not progress over time except for 1 hip that showed a complete radiolucency around the acetabular component.

Conclusions:

Our results clearly show that HRA is a viable prosthetic solution with many advantages for all active patients, regardless of their age at the time of surgery.

Keywords

Age hip resurfacing metal-on-metal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schmalzried

Fowble

Ure

, et al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Technique, fixation, and early results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 329(Suppl.): 106–114.

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty annual report 2018. Adelaide: AOANJRR, 2018.

Van Der Straeten

De Smet

. Current expert views on metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Consensus of the 6th advanced Hip resurfacing course, Ghent, Belgium, May 2014. Hip Int 2016; 26: 1–7.

Carrothers

Gilbert

Richardson

JB.

Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients who are seventy years of age or older. Hip Int 2011; 21: 217–224.

Pailhe

Matharu

Sharma

, et al. Survival and functional outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system in patients aged 65 and older at up to ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop 2013; 38: 1139–1145.

Le Duff

Takamura

Amstutz

. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 65 years or older. Hip Int 2012; 22: 648–654.

Amstutz

Thomas

Jinnah

, et al. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 228–241.

Ware

Kosinski

Keller

SD.

SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. 3rd ed. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Inc.,1998.

Langton

Sprowson

Joyce

, et al. Blood metal ion concentrations after hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a comparative study of articular surface replacement and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 1287–1295.

10.

Amstutz

Le Duff

Bhaurla

Risk factors for wear-related failures after hip resurfacing in patients with a low contact patch to rim distance. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B: 865–871.

11.

DeLee

Charnley

Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; (121): 20–32.

12.

Hellman

Ford

Barrack

RL.

Is there evidence to support an indication for surface replacement arthroplasty?

Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. A): 32–40.

13.

Kreipke

Rogmark

Pedersen

, et al. Dual mobility cups: effect on risk of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis: a matched population-based study using the Nordic arthroplasty register association database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101: 169–176.

14.

Gaillard

Kenney

Delalande

, et al. Ten- to 16-year results of a modern cementless dual-mobility acetabular implant in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 2704– 2710.

15.

Jones

De Martino

D’Apolito

, et al. The use of dual-mobility bearings in patients at high risk of dislocation. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(Suppl. A): 41–45.

16.

Addona

De Martino

, et al. High rate of early intraprosthetic dislocations of dual mobility implants: a single surgeon series of primary and revision total hip replacements. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 2793–2798.

17.

Colacchio

Wooten

Martin

, et al. Dual mobility for monoblock metal-on-metal revision-is it safe? J Arthroplasty 2020; 35; 508–512.

18.

Robb

Harris

O’Dwyer

, et al. Radiographic assessment of biomechanical parameters following hip resurfacing and cemented total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2009; 19: 251–256.

19.

Gerhardt

Smolders

Rijnders

, et al. Changes in bone mineral density and femoral neck narrowing in the proximal femur three to five years after hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 30: 308–314.

20.

Gerhardt

Smolders

Roovers

, et al. Changes in periacetabular bone mineral density five years after resurfacing hip arthroplasty versus conventional total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2019; 29: 153–160.

21.

Reeves

Schairer

Jevsevar

DS.

The national burden of periprosthetic hip fractures in the US: costs and risk factors for hospital readmission. Hip Int 2019; 29: 550–557.

22.

Aqil

Drabu

Bergmann

, et al. The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 795–801.

23.

Gerhardt

DMJM

Mors

TGT

Hannink

, et al. Resurfacing hip arthroplasty better preserves a normal gait pattern at increasing walking speeds compared to total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2019; 90: 231–236.

24.

Tan

Le Duff

Takamura

, et al. Do clinical and quality of life scores change over time after hip resurfacing? Hip Int 2015; 25: 146–151.