Comparison of Functional Results of Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Replacement: A Review of the Literature

Orthopedic Clinics of North America

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 143-151

  Shimmin, Andrew J ^a   Baré, Jon V ^a  

^a Melbourne Orthopaedic Group   (Australia)

Author keywords

Arthroplasty; Function; Replacement; Resurfacing; Total hip

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL EVALUATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; GAIT; HIP RESURFACING; HIP SURGERY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANGE OF MOTION; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; WALKING SPEED;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; GAIT; HIP JOINT; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79952800703     PISSN: 00305898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2010.12.007     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Australian Orthopaedic Association Joint Replacement Register. In annual report, 2009.
2. Eskelinen A., Remes V., Helenius I., et al. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years. Acta Orthop 2005, 76:28-41.
3. Furnes O., Lie S.A., Espehaug B., et al. Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements. A review of 53,698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1987-99. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001, 83:579-586.
4. Malchau H., Herberts P., Ahnfelt L. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990. Acta Orthop Scand 1993, 64:497-506.
5. Corten K., MacDonald S.J. Hip resurfacing data from national joint registries: what do they tell us? What do they not tell us?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:351-357.
6. Murphy T.P., Trousdale R.T., Pagnano M.W., et al. Patients' perceptions of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2009, 32:730.
7. Bozic K.J., Pui C.M., Ludeman M.J., et al. Do the potential benefits of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing justify the increased cost and risk of complications?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2301-2312.
8. Marker D.R., Strimbu K., McGrath M.S., et al. Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty-review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009, 67:120-127.
9. Quesada M.J., Marker D.R., Mont M.A. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:69-73.
10. Kluess D., Zietz C., Lindner T., et al. Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter. Acta Orthop 2008, 79:748-754.
11. Bengs B.C., Sangiorgio S.N., Ebramzadeh E. Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs. Acta Orthop 2008, 79:755-762.
12. Incavo S.J., Thompson M.T., Gold J.E., et al. Which procedure better restores intact hip range of motion: total hip arthroplasty or resurfacing? A combined cadaveric and computer simulation study. J Arthroplasty 2010, [Epub ahead of print].
13. Vail T.P., Mina C.A., Yergler J.D., et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 453:123-131.
14. Lavigne M, Mottard S, Girard J, et al. Range of motion after hip resurfacing and THA: a single-blind randomized clinical study. Proceedings of the 75th Annual American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Meeting. San Francisco, March 5-9, 2008. p. 384.
15. Le Duff M.J., Wisk L.E., Amstutz H.C. Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing-a clinical study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009, 67:177-181.
16. Killampalli V.V., Kundra R.K., Chaudhry F., et al. Resurfacing and uncemented arthroplasty for young hip arthritis: functional outcomes at 5 years. Hip Int 2009, 19:234-238.
17. Mont M.A., Marker D.R., Smith J.M., et al. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:66-71.
18. Pattyn C., De Smet K.A. Primary ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement versus metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in young active patients. Orthopedics 2008, 31:1078.
19. Pollard T.C., Baker R.P., Eastaugh-Waring S.J., 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. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88:592-600.
20. Vendittoli P.A., Lavigne M., Roy A.G., et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int 2006, 16(Suppl 4):73-81.
21. Zywiel M.G., Marker D.R., McGrath M.S., et al. Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels - a comparison of postoperative outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009, 67:116-119.
22. Wamper K.E., Sierevelt I.N., Poolman R.W., et al. The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?. Acta Orthop 2010, 81:703-707.
23. Dora C., Houweling M., Koch P., et al. Iliopsoas impingement after total hip replacement: the results of non-operative management, tenotomy or acetabular revision. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89:1031-1035.
24. O'Sullivan M., Tai C.C., Richards S., et al. Iliopsoas tendonitis a complication after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:166-170.
25. Bin Nasser A., Beaule P.E., O'Neill M., et al. Incidence of groin pain after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:392-399.
26. Bartelt R.B., Yuan B.J., Trousdale R.T., et al. The prevalence of groin pain after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and total hip resurfacing. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2346-2356.
27. Hall D.P., Srikantharajah D., Anakwe R.E., et al. Patient-reported outcome following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip and total hip replacement. Hip Int 2009, 19:245-250.
28. Vendittoli P.A., Ganapathi M., Roy A.G., et al. A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3-6 years follow-up. Hip Int 2010, 20:1-3.
29. Stulberg B.N., Fitts S.M., Bowen A.R., et al. Early return to function after hip resurfacing: is it better than contemporary total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2010, 25:748-753.
30. Garbuz D.S., Tanzer M., Greidanus N.V., et al. The John Charnley Award: metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:318-325.
31. Girard J., Lavigne M., Vendittoli P.A., et al. Biomechanical reconstruction of the hip: a randomised study comparing total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006, 88:721-726.
32. Ahmad R., Gillespie G., Annamalai S., et al. Leg length and offset following hip resurfacing and hip replacement. Hip Int 2009, 19:136-140.
33. Robb C., Harris R., O'Dwyer K., et al. Radiographic assessment of biomechanical parameters following hip resurfacing and cemented total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2009, 19:251-256.
34. Loughead J.M., Chesney D., Holland J.P., et al. Comparison of offset in Birmingham hip resurfacing and hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005, 87:163-166.
35. Mont M.A., Seyler T.M., Ragland P.S., et al. Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:100-108.
36. Shrader M.W., Bhowmik-Stoker M., Jacofsky M.C., et al. Gait and stair function in total and resurfacing hip arthroplasty: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:1476-1484.
37. Lavigne M., Therrien M., Nantel J., et al. The John Charnley Award: the functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:326-336.
38. Shimmin A, Bennell K, Wrigley T, et al. Gait analysis comparison of the functional outcome of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. Proceedings of the 75th Annual American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Meeting. San Francisco, March 5-9, 2008. p. 382.
39. Sandiford N.A., Muirhead-Allwood S.K., Skinner J.A., et al. Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement-early results. J Orthop Surg Res 2010, 5:8.
40. Rahman L., Muirhead-Allwood S.K., Alkinj M. What is the midterm survivorship and function after hip resurfacing?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:3221-3227.
41. Fowble V.A., dela Rosa M.A., Schmalzried T.P. A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty - patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2009, 67:108-112.