Femoral revision in hip resurfacing compared with large-bearing metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.
ABSTRACT It has been suggested that revision of the femoral component of hip resurfacing after femoral failure would be straightforward and have an outcome comparable to primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We have compared the outcome of femoral side-only revision resurfacings to the results of primary modular large-bearing metal-on-metal THA. Fourteen consecutive patients underwent revision surgery of the failed femoral component, to a cemented tapered stem (CPT, Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) with a large modular metal head (Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics Ltd, Memphis, Tennessee, or Adept, Finsbury Orthopaedics, Surrey, England). The acetabular component was found to be well fixed, well orientated, and was left in situ. The 14 matched patients in the primary THA group received the same components. At a mean follow-up of 49 months (range, 30-60 months), clinical outcome measured using the Oxford and Harris Hip Scores showed no significant difference (P = .11, P = .45, respectively). Operative time and blood loss were comparable for both groups. We conclude that revision of the failed femoral resurfacing component gives excellent results.
- SourceAvailable from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Suitable treatment of early failure of total hip replacement is critical in younger patients, as bone stock is lost and the functional outcome is impaired. We report the case of a 56-year-old Caucasian woman with early failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. While revision is usually performed with a conventional hip implant, this case report describes for the first time a revision procedure with a bone-conserving short-stem hip implant. Our approach allows further conservation of femoral bone stock and provides a long-term solution to the patient, which maintains the possibility of using a conventional hip implant should a second revision become necessary.Journal of Medical Case Reports 08/2012; 6(1):249.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A theoretical clinical advantage of hip resurfacing (HR) is the preservation of femoral bone. HR femoral component revision reportedly yields postoperative function comparable to that of primary THA. However, few studies have looked at the outcome of both HR femoral and acetabular side revisions. We determined whether (1) patients undergoing HR revision to THA have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing primary THA or revision of primary THA and (2) patients undergoing HR revision of both components have perioperative measures and outcome scores comparable to those of patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral component only. We retrospectively reviewed and compared 22 patients undergoing revision HR to a THA to a matched (age, sex, BMI) group of 23 patients undergoing primary THA and 12 patients undergoing primary THA revision. Patients completed the WOMAC and SF-12 questionnaires before surgery and at latest followup (range, 24-84 months for HR revision, 28-48 months for primary THA, and 24-48 months for revision THA). Blood loss, days in hospital, complications, and outcome scores were compared among groups. We observed no differences in SF-12 scores but observed lower WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores in the HR revision group than in the primary THA group. Patients undergoing HR revision of both components had comparable SF-12 and WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores but overall lower WOMAC pain scores compared to patients undergoing HR revision of the femoral side only. The HR revision group had greater intraoperative blood loss compared to the primary THA group but not the revision THA group. The perioperative measures and outcome scores of HR revision are comparable to those of revision THA but not primary THA. Longer followup is required to determine whether these differences persist. Patients undergoing HR revision of one or both components can expect comparable stiffness and function. Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 08/2012; 470(11):3134-41. · 2.79 Impact Factor