Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

The role of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant in modern arthroplasty remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcomes, radiological outcomes and revision rates following BHR in a single institution at a minimum of 10 years follow-up.

Materials and methods:

An observational study was undertaken evaluating patient demographics & surgical details. The overall revision rate was quantified, and postoperative functional status was defined using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Implant survivorship was illustrated utilising a Kaplan-Meier estimator plot. A further subgroup analysis was undertaken comparing those with a unilateral BHR (Group 1), bilateral BHRs (Group 2) and those who have underwent a unilateral BHR and contralateral non-MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA) (Group 3).

Results:

126 BHR procedures undertaken in 103 patients with a mean follow-up of 15.3 years were suitable for inclusion. This cohort consisted of 109 males (86.5%), with a mean age of 56.7 years (SD ± 8.3) at time of index BHR. 8 BHRs (6.3%) had been revised at a mean of 11.2 years (SD ± 5.4) following index BHR at time of follow-up, with an overall implant survival rate of 97% and 94% at 10 and 15 years postoperatively. In the remaining BHR cases the mean MHHS, cobalt and chromium levels at time of most recent follow-up were 85.2 (SD ± 17.6), 50 nmol/L and 42.2 nmol/L respectively. No significant difference was identified between Groups 1, 2 and 3 in regards overall revision rates, functional outcomes, radiological changes and serum metal ion levels.

Conclusions:

BHR is associated with acceptable revision rates, functional outcomes and serum metal ion levels at a minimum of 10 years follow-up. BHR may potentially be considered as a viable alternative to THA in the carefully selected younger patient when undertaken in units with appropriate surgical expertise and follow-up.

Keywords

Arthroplasty Birmingham hip metal-on-metal outcomes replacement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Daniel

Pradhan

Ziaee

, et al. Results of Birmingham hip resurfacing at 12 to 15 years: a single-surgeon series. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 1298–1306.

Watt Kearns

Bourget-Murray

Johnston

, et al. Comparing 1-year and 10-year whole blood metal ion results following Birmingham hip resurfacing for osteoarthritis. Can J Surg 2022; 65: E504–E511.

Pérez-Moro

Fernández-Cuadros

Neira-Borrajo

, et al. Short and mid-term outcomes and functional results in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty at 5 years follow-up: the Spanish experience. BMC Musculoskelet Disorders 2019; 20: 172.

Clough

TM.

Metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: where are we now?

J Orthop 2021; 23: 123–127.

Matharu

Pynsent

Dunlop

DJ.

Revision of metal-on-metal hip replacements and resurfacings for adverse reaction to metal debris: a systematic review of outcomes. Hip Int 2014; 24: 311–320.

Stoney

Graves

de Steiger

, et al. Is the survivorship of Birmingham hip resurfacing better than selected conventional hip arthroplasties in men younger than 65 years of age? A study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478: 2625–2636.

Van Der Straeten

and the International Hip Resurfacing Group. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty in young patients: international high-volume centres’ report on the outcome of 11,382 metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties in patients ⩽50 years at surgery. Hip Int 2020; 32: 353–362.

Ford

Hellman

Kazarian

, et al. Five to ten-year results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing implant in the U.S.: a single institution’s experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100: 1879–1887.

Azam

McMahon

Hawdon

, et al. Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years’ follow-up. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 1–7.

10.

Amstutz

Le Duff

Campbell

, et al. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 2663–2671.

11.

von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e296.

12.

MHRA (MDA/2017/018) All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements: updated advice for follow-up of patients. London: Department of Health, 2017.

13.

Kumar

Sen

Aggarwal

, et al. Reliability of modified Harris Hip Score as a tool for outcome evaluation of total hip replacements in Indian population. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10: 128–130.

14.

ODEP. Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacing device -resurfacing device, https://www.odep.org.uk/product/birmingham-hip-resurfacing-device/ (2022).

15.

National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry 19th Annual Report 2022. 2022.

16.

Halawi

Oak

Brigati

, et al. Birmingham hip resurfacing versus cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients 55 years or younger: a minimum five-year follow-up. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018; 9: 285–288.

17.

Matharu

McBryde

Pynsent

, et al. The outcome of the Birmingham hip resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1172–1177.

18.

Oxblom

Hedlund

Nemes

, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in hip resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty: a register-based matched cohort study of 726 patients. Acta Orthop 2019; 90: 318–323.

19.

Evans

Walker

, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393: 647–654.

20.

Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee, & Shoulder Arthroplasty 2022 Annual Report. 2022.

21.

Molloy

Handford

Coolican

, et al. Long-term outcomes of Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a systematic review of independent series with at least 10 years of follow-up. JB JS Open Access 2024; 9: e23.00057.

22.

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 2014; 38: 1139–1145.

23.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Total hip replacement and resurfacing arthroplasty for end-stage arthritis of the hip. TA304. 2014.

24.

Karas

Outcomes of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a systematic review. Asian J Sports Med 2012; 3: 1–7.

25.

Hunter

TJA

Moores

Morley

, et al. 10-year results of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: a non-designer case series. Hip Int 2018; 28: 50–52.

26.

Matharu

Judge

Eskelinen

, et al. What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? Acta Orthop 2018; 89: 29–39.

27.

Uchihara

Grammatopoulos

Munemoto

, et al. Implant failure in bilateral metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties: a clinical and pathological study. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2018; 29: 28.

Outcomes following Birmingham hip resurfacing at a minimum of 10 years follow-up: an observational study

Abstract

Background:

Materials and methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References