Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty: Evidence from the nordic arthroplasty register association (NARA) database, 1995 to 2007

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 81, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 535-541

  Johanson, Per Erik ^a   Fenstad, Anne Marie ^b   Furnes, Ove ^b,c   Garellick, Göran ^a   Havelin, Leif I ^b,c   Overgaard, Sören ^d,e   Pedersen, Alma B ^e   Kärrholm, Johan ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^d ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^e AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILDHOOD DISEASE; DATA BASE; ENDOPROSTHESIS LOOSENING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; FEMUR HEAD NECROSIS; FRACTURE; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP DISEASE; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METAL IMPLANTATION; NORWAY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PAIN; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REGISTER; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REOPERATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SURVIVAL RATE; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HIP PROSTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77957893909     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2010.525193     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Amstutz H C, Le Duff M J, Campbell P A, Dorey J D. The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (4): 481-489
2. Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Annual Report 2008. www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr Accessed Feb 10 2010.
3. Back D L, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2005; 87: 324-329
4. Beaulé P E, Matar W Y, Poitras P, Smit K, May, O. 2008 Otto Aufranc Award: component design and technique affect cement penetration in hip resurfacing. Clin Ortop 2009; (467) (1): 84-93.
5. Buergi M L, Walter W L. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty. The Australian experience. J Arthroplasty (Suppl 3) 2007; 22 (7): 61-65
6. Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR). Hip and knee replacements in Canada. 2008-2009 Annual Report. www.cihi.ca/cjrr Accessed Feb 10 2010.
7. Daniel J, Pynsent P B, McMinn D. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2004; 86 (2): 177-184
8. Hart A J, Sabah S, Henckel J, Lewis A, Cobb J, Sampson B, Mitchell A, Skinner J A. The painful metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2009; 91 (6): 738-744
9. Havelin L I, Fenstad A M, Salomonsson R, Mehnert F, Furnes O, Overgaard S, Pedersen A B, Herberts P, Kärrholm J, Garellick G. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. An unique collaboration between 3 national hip arthroplasty registries with 280201 THRs. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (4): 393-401.
10. Hing C B, Back D L, Bailey M; Young D A, Dalziel R E, Shimmin A J. The results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings at a mean of five years. An independent prospective review if the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2007; 89 (11): 1431-1438
11. Kim P R, Beaule P E, Laflamme G Y, Dunbar M. Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty (Suppl 1) 2008; 23 (6): 44-49
12. Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2007. ISBN 978-91-977112-2-7. Göteborg 2008. www.jru.orthop.gu.se. Accessed Feb 10 2010.
13. Lie S A, Engesaeter L B, Havelin L I, Gjessing H K, Vollset S E. Dependency issues in survival analyzes of 55 782 primary hip replacements from 47 355 patients. Stat Med 2004; 23 (20): 3227-3240
14. Long W T, Dastane M, Harris M J, Wan Z, Dorr L D. Failure of the Durom Metasul® Acetabular Component. Clin Orthop 2010; (468) (2): 400-405
15. Marker D R, Seyler M S, Jinnah R H, Delanois R E, Ulrich S D, Mont M A. Femoral neck fractures after metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing. A prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty (Suppl 3) 2007; 22 (7): 66-71.
16. McBryde C W, Theivendran K, Thomas A M C, Treacy R B C, Pynsent P B. The influence of head size and sex on the outcome of Brimingham Hip Resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2010; 92 (1): 105-112
17. McMinn D, Daniel J. History and modern concepts in hip resurfacing. Proc Inst Mech Eng (H) 2006; 220 (2): 239-251
18. Mont M A, Seyler M S, Ulrich, S D, Beaule P E, Boyd H S, Grecula M J, Goldberg V M, Kennedy W R, Marker D R, Schmalzried T P, Sparling E A, Vail T P, Amstutz H C. Effect of changing indications and techniques on total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop 2007; (465): 63-70.
19. National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR England-Wales). 4th Annual Report 2007. www.njrcentre.org.uk Accessed Feb 10 2010.
20. National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR England-Wales). 6th Annual Report 2009. www.njrcentre.org.uk Accessed Feb 10 2010.
21. Nunley R M, Zhu J, Brooks P J, Engh Jr C A, Raterman S J, Rogerson J S, Barrack R L. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop 2010; (468) (2): 382-391
22. Ollivere B, Darrah C, Barker T, Nolan J, Porteous M J. Early clinical failure of the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip resurfacing is associated with metallosis and soft-tissue necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2009; 91 (8): 1025-1030
23. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons C L M, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill H S, Murray D W. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2008; 90 (7): 847-851
24. Pollard T C B, Baker R P, Eastaugh-Waring S J, Bannister G C. 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. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2006; 88 (5): 592-600.
25. Prosser G H, Yates P J, Wood D J Graves S E, de Steiger R N, Miller L N. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision. 12 093 replacements from the Australian Joint Registry. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (1): 66-71.
26. Robertsson O, Ranstam J. No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: Analysis of a population based sample of 44 590 patients with 55 298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2003; 4: 1-4.
27. Schwarzer G, Schumacher M, Maurer T B, Ochsner P E. Statistical analysis of failure times in total joint replacement. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (10): 997-1003.
28. Shimmin A J, Beaulé P E, Campbell P. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2008; 90: 637-654
29. Stulberg B N, Trier K K, Naughton M, Zadzilka J D. Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) (Suppl 3) 2008; 90 (3): 21-26
30. Treacy R B C, McBryde C W, Pynsent P B. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2005; 87 (2): 167-170
31. Vail T P, Mina C A, Yergler J D, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favourably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Ortop 2006; (453): 123-131
32. Witjes S, Smolders J M H, Beaulé P E, Pasker P, van Susante J L C. Learning from the learning curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129 (10): 1293-1299