Hip Resurfacing versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Comparing Standardized Outcomes

Universiteit Twente, Enschede, Overijssel, Netherlands
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.77). 04/2014; 472(7). DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3556-3
Source: PubMed


Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing was developed for younger, active patients as an alternative to THA, but it remains controversial. Study heterogeneity, inconsistent outcome definitions, and unstandardized outcome measures challenge our ability to compare arthroplasty outcomes studies.
We asked how early revisions or reoperations (within 5 years of surgery) and overall revisions, adverse events, and postoperative component malalignment compare among studies of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with THA among patients with hip osteoarthritis. Secondarily, we compared the revision frequency identified in the systematic review with revisions reported in four major joint replacement registries.
We conducted a systematic review of English language studies published after 1996. Adverse events of interest included rates of early failure, time to revision, revision, reoperation, dislocation, infection/sepsis, femoral neck fracture, mortality, and postoperative component alignment. Revision rates were compared with those from four national joint replacement registries. Results were reported as adverse event rates per 1000 person-years stratified by device market status (in use and discontinued). Comparisons between event rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and THA are made using a quasilikelihood generalized linear model. We identified 7421 abstracts, screened and reviewed 384 full-text articles, and included 236. The most common study designs were prospective cohort studies (46.6%; n = 110) and retrospective studies (36%; n = 85). Few randomized controlled trials were included (7.2%; n = 17).
The average time to revision was 3.0 years for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (95% CI, 2.95-3.1) versus 7.8 for THA (95% CI, 7.2-8.3). For all devices, revisions and reoperations were more frequent with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing than THA based on point estimates and CIs: 10.7 (95% CI, 10.1-11.3) versus 7.1 (95% CI, 6.7-7.6; p = 0.068), and 7.9 (95% CI, 5.4-11.3) versus 1.8 (95% CI, 1.3-2.2; p = 0.084) per 1000 person-years, respectively. This difference was consistent with three of four national joint replacement registries, but overall national joint replacement registries revision rates were lower than those reported in the literature. Dislocations were more frequent with THA than metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) versus 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2; p = 0.008) per 1000 person-years, respectively. Adverse event rates change when discontinued devices were included.
Revisions and reoperations are more frequent and occur earlier with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing, except when discontinued devices are removed from the analyses. Results from the literature may be misleading without consistent definitions, standardized outcome metrics, and accounting for device market status. This is important when clinicians are assessing and communicating patient risk and when selecting which device is most appropriate for individual patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Deborah Marshall, May 28, 2014
102 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hip resurfacing has been considered a good treatment option for younger, active osteoarthritis patients. However, there are several identified issues concerning risk for neck fractures and issues related to current metal-on-metal implant designs. Neck-preserving short-stem implants have been discussed as a potential alternative, but it is yet unclear which method is better suited for younger adults. We compared hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS) from a young group of patients (, age 48.9 ± 6.1 years) who had received hip resurfacing (HR) with a cohort of patients (, age 48.2 ± 6.6 years) who had received neck-preserving, short-stem implant total hip arthroplasty (THA). Additionally, durations for both types of surgery were compared. HOOS improved significantly preoperatively to last followup (>1 year) in both groups (, ); there were no group effects or interactions. Surgery duration was significantly longer for resurfacing (104.4 min ± 17.8) than MiniHip surgery (62.5 min ± 14.8), , , . The neck-preserving short-stem approach may be preferable to resurfacing due to the less challenging surgery, similar outcome, and controversy regarding resurfacing implant designs.
    06/2015; 2015:1-7. DOI:10.1155/2015/817689
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender. This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71-11.98]; p < 0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2-7.5], p = 0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21-4.58], p < 0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25-2.78], p < 0.001) after primary MoM HRA. A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications). Level III, therapeutic study.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 03/2015; 473(8). DOI:10.1007/s11999-015-4227-8 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although Kaplan-Meier survival analysis is commonly used to estimate the cumulative incidence of revision after joint arthroplasty, it theoretically overestimates the risk of revision in the presence of competing risks (such as death). Because the magnitude of overestimation is not well documented, the potential associated impact on clinical and policy decision-making remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis to answer the following questions: (1) To what extent does the Kaplan-Meier method overestimate the cumulative incidence of revision after joint replacement compared with alternative competing-risks methods? (2) Is the extent of overestimation influenced by followup time or rate of competing risks? We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science (1946, 1980, 1980, and 1899, respectively, to October 26, 2013) and included article bibliographies for studies comparing estimated cumulative incidence of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty obtained using both Kaplan-Meier and competing-risks methods. We excluded conference abstracts, unpublished studies, or studies using simulated data sets. Two reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of reporting of the included studies. Among 1160 abstracts identified, six studies were included in our meta-analysis. The principal reason for the steep attrition (1160 to six) was that the initial search was for studies in any clinical area that compared the cumulative incidence estimated using the Kaplan-Meier versus competing-risks methods for any event (not just the cumulative incidence of hip or knee revision); we did this to minimize the likelihood of missing any relevant studies. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) comparing the cumulative incidence estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with the competing-risks method for each study and used DerSimonian and Laird random effects models to pool these RRs. Heterogeneity was explored using stratified meta-analyses and metaregression. The pooled cumulative incidence of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method was 1.55 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.43-1.68; p < 0.001) than that obtained using the competing-risks method. Longer followup times and higher proportions of competing risks were not associated with increases in the amount of overestimation of revision risk by the Kaplan-Meier method (all p > 0.10). This may be due to the small number of studies that met the inclusion criteria and conservative variance approximation. The Kaplan-Meier method overestimates risk of revision after hip or knee arthroplasty in populations where competing risks (such as death) might preclude the occurrence of the event of interest (revision). Competing-risks methods should be used to more accurately estimate the cumulative incidence of revision when the goal is to plan healthcare services and resource allocation for revisions.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 03/2015; 473(11). DOI:10.1007/s11999-015-4235-8 · 2.77 Impact Factor
Show more