The five-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: an independent series.

Few independent studies have reported the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. The aim of this study was to report the five-year clinical outcome and seven-year survival of an independent series. A total of 610 Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasties were performed in 532 patients with a mean age of 51.8 years (16.5 to 81.6). They were followed for between two and eight years; 107 patients (120 hips) had been followed up for more than five years. Two patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum of five years' follow-up, 79 of 85 hips (93%) had an excellent or good outcome according to the Harris hip score. The mean Oxford hip score was 16.1 points (sd 7.7) and the mean University of California Los Angeles activity score was 6.6 points (sd 1.9). There were no patients with definite radiological evidence of loosening or of narrowing of the femoral neck exceeding 10% of its width. There were 23 revisions (3.8%), giving an overall survival of 95% (95% confidence interval 85.3 to 99.2) at seven years. Fractured neck of femur in 12 hips was the most common indication for revision, followed by aseptic loosening in four. In three hips (three patients) (0.5%), failure was possibly related to metal debris. Considering that these patients are young and active these results are good, and support the use of resurfacing. Further study is needed to address the early failures, particularly those related to fracture and metal debris.

[1]  N. Sugano,et al.  Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  N. Pratt,et al.  The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry , 2004, Bone & Joint Open.

[3]  P B Pynsent,et al.  Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[4]  C. Hing,et al.  The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review of the first 230 hips. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[5]  L. Riley,et al.  Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. , 1973, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  M. L. Le Duff,et al.  Results of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing for Crowe type-I and II developmental dysplasia. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  P B Pynsent,et al.  Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  K. Smet,et al.  Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacing using a hybrid metal-on-metal couple. , 2002, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[9]  H. Gill,et al.  The effect of hip resurfacing on oxygen concentration in the femoral head. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[10]  G. Bannister,et al.  Is the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing worthwhile , 2003 .

[11]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Hybrid total hip arthroplasty in patients under the age of fifty: a five- to ten-year follow-up. , 1998, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[12]  P. Pynsent,et al.  Mini-incision Resurfacing Arthroplasty of Hip through the Posterior Approach , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  W. Harris,et al.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. , 1969, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  D W Murray,et al.  Survival analysis of joint replacements. , 1993, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[15]  G. Irvine Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  P. Campbell,et al.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  D W Murray,et al.  Osteonecrosis in retrieved femoral heads after failed resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[18]  A Shimmin,et al.  Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  N. Pratt,et al.  Lower prosthesis-specific 10-year revision rate with crosslinked than with non-crosslinked polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty , 2015, Acta Orthopaedica.

[20]  S. White The fate of cemented total hip arthroplasty in young patients. , 1988, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  B. Wroblewski Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[22]  T. Schmalzried,et al.  Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. , 1998, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  C. Hing,et al.  Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[24]  P. Pynsent,et al.  Metal on Metal Surface Replacement of the Hip: Experience of the McMinn Prosthesis , 1996, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[25]  S J Eastaugh-Waring,et al.  Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[26]  Young-Hoo Kim,et al.  Total Hip Replacement with a Cementless Acetabular Component and a Cemented Femoral Component in Patients Younger than Fifty Years of Age , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.