The outcomes of hip resurfacing compared to standard primary total hip arthroplasty in Men

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of hip resurfacing patients and compare them to standard primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed during the same period of time. Methods. One hundred and fourteen consecutive men who had a mean age of 50 years (range, 20 to 85 years) and who had undergone 120 hip resurfacing arthroplasties between 2007 and 2009 were compared to 117 consecutive men (120 hips) who had undergone a standard total hip arthroplasty during the same time period. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range, 24 to 55 months) for both groups. Outcomes evaluated included implant survivorship, hip scores, activity levels, and complication rates. Results: In the resurfacing hip arthroplasty cohort, implant survivorship was 98% with two patients requiring a revision surgery one for femoral neck fracture and another for femoral head loosening. In comparison, implant survivorship was 99% in the standard total hip arthroplasty cohort, with 1 revision due to peri-prosthetic fracture which was successfully treated with a femoral component revision. In the resurfacing and standard hip arthroplasty cohorts, the mean post-operative Harris hip scores had improved to 96 and 94 points, respectively and were statistically similar. The resurfacing cohort had achieved a significantly higher mean post-operative University of California Activity Score (6.7 versus 5 points). There were no differences in the complication rates between the two cohorts. Conclusion: When patients meet the appropriate selection criteria in the hands of experienced and high-volume arthroplasty surgeons, hip resurfacing provides excellent results at short- to mid-term follow-up. © 2013 Issa et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.