Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement - early results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>There is no current consensus on the most appropriate prosthesis for treating symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip in young, active patients. Modern metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HR) has gained popularity as it is theoretically more stable, bone conserving and easier to revise than total hip arthroplasty. Early results of metal on metal resurfacing have been encouraging. We have compared two well matched cohorts of patients with regard to function, pain relief and patient satisfaction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This prospective study compares 2 cohorts of young, active patients treated with hip resurfacing (137 patients, 141 hips) and custom uncemented (CADCAM) stems (134 patients, 141 hips). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon. Outcome measures included Oxford, WOMAC and Harris hip scores as well as an activity score. Statistical analysis was performed using the unpaired student's t-test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and thirty four and 137 patients were included in the hip replacement and resurfacing groups respectively. The mean age of these patients was 54.6 years. The mean duration of follow up for the hip resurfacing group was 19.2 months compared to 13.4 months for the total hip replacement group.</p> <p>Pre operative oxford, Harris and WOMAC scores in the THA group were 41.1, 46.4 and 50.9 respectively while the post operative scores were 14.8, 95.8 and 5.0. In the HR group, pre- operative scores were 37.0, 54.1 and 45.9 respectively compared to 15.0, 96.8 and 6.1 post operatively. The degree of improvement was similar in both groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no significant clinical difference between the patients treated with hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty in the short term.</p

Functional outcome, revision rates and mortality after primary total hip replacement--a national comparison of nine prosthesis brands in England.

BACKGROUND: The number of prosthesis brands used for hip replacement has increased rapidly, but there is little evidence on their effectiveness. We compared patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, and mortality for the three most frequently used brands within each prosthesis type: cemented (Exeter V40 Contemporary, Exeter V40 Duration and Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee), cementless (Corail Pinnacle, Accolade Trident, and Taperloc Exceed), and hybrid (Exeter V40 Trilogy, Exeter V40 Trilogy, and CPT Trilogy). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used three national databases of patients who had hip replacements between 2008 and 2011 in the English NHS to compare functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score (OHS) ranging from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) in 43,524 patients at six months. We analysed revisions and mortality in 187,201 patients. We used multiple regression to adjust for pre-operative differences. Prosthesis type had an impact on post-operative OHS and revision rates (both p<0.001). Patients with hybrid prostheses had the best functional outcome (mean OHS 39.4, 95%CI 39.1 to 39.7) and those with cemented prostheses the worst (37.7, 37.3 to 38.1). Patients with cemented prostheses had the lowest reported 5-year revision rates (1.3%, 1.2% to 1.4%) and those with cementless prostheses the highest (2.2%, 2.1% to 2.4%). Differences in mortality according to prosthesis type were small and not significant (p = 0.06). Functional outcome varied according to brand among cemented (p = 0.05, with Exeter V40 Duration having the best) and cementless prostheses (p = 0.01, with Corail Pinnacle having the best). Revision rates varied according to brand among hybrids (p = 0.05, with Exeter V40 Trident having the lowest). CONCLUSIONS: Functional outcomes were better with cementless cups and revision rates were lower with cemented stems, which underlies the good overall performance of hybrids. The hybrid Exeter V40 Trident seemed to produce the best overall results. This brand should be considered as a benchmark in randomised trials

Indications and results of hip resurfacing

The best indication for hip resurfacing is a young active patient with severe hip arthritis, good hip morphology and reasonable bone quality. With revision of either component for any reason as the endpoint, there were 68 revisions in our series of 3,095 consecutive Birmingham Hip Resurfacings (BHR) (1997–2009), including all diagnoses in all ages. This equates to a revision rate of 2.2% and survivorships of 99, 97 and 96% at five, ten and 13 years, respectively. In patients under 55 years with osteoarthritis, the survivorship is 99 and 98% at ten and 13 years. These results provide medium-term evidence that BHR when performed well in properly selected patients offers excellent outcomes and implant survivorship. Small changes to implant materials and design can affect joint function and survivorship significantly as seen from the withdrawal of certain resurfacing devices recently from clinical use. The clinical history of one device cannot be extrapolated to other devices

Systemic effects of polymethylmethycrylate in total knee replacement

Objective Mortality rates reported by the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) were higher following cemented total knee replacement (TKR) compared with uncemented procedures. The aim of this study is to examine and compare the effects of cemented and uncemented TKR on the activation of selected markers of inflammation, endothelium, and coagulation, and on the activation of selected cytokines involved in the various aspects of the systemic response following surgery. Methods This was a single centre, prospective, case-control study. Following enrolment, blood samples were taken pre-operatively, and further samples were collected at day one and day seven post-operatively. One patient in the cemented group developed a deep-vein thrombosis confirmed on ultrasonography and was excluded, leaving 19 patients in this cohort (mean age 67.4, (SD 10.62)), and one patient in the uncemented group developed a post-operative wound infection and was excluded, leaving 19 patients (mean age 66.5, (SD 7.82)). Results Both groups had a similar response with regards to the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα). CD40 levels rose significantly on the cemented group over day one to day seven compared with that of the uncemented group, which occurred over the first 24 hours. The CD14/42a levels demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the cemented group (p &#60; 0.001 first 24 hours and p = 0.02 between days one and seven). Conclusions The uncemented and cemented groups demonstrated significant changes in the various parameters measured at various time points but apart from CD14/42a levels, there was no significant difference in the serum markers of inflammation, coagulation and endothelial dysfunction following cemented TKR.</p