Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: is it safe and reliable? A synopsis of the past, the present, and the future of HRA.

This paper discusses the existing literature in the field of metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), the background (why was it developed), the past (what was the evidence leading to its rise and fall in clinical use), the present situation (why a potential resurgence), and the future directions for potential improvements. All literature relevant to MoM HRA was reviewed and summarized to provide a comprehensive summary. Furthermore, a detailed literature search was performed on PubMeD, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar to identify all clinical studies reporting a minimum 10 years of outcomes for modern MoM HRA devices from February 2018 to February 2023. In addition, joint registry data over the same time period, available in the public domain, was examined to extract related information on MoM HRA. Metal ions are present in almost all types of hip replacement; on the whole, however, the risk of revision for resurfacing due to metal-related pathologies is very low, but higher than in other types of bearings. There are studies that show that some brands of MoM resurfacing prostheses have achieved excellent clinical outcomes in long-term follow-up studies and are still in use although less commonly than in early 2000s. Use of alternative bearing surfaces has demonstrated excellent results in the short-term and a very critical long-term follow-up of these cases still will help establish their place in the hip arthroplasty world. HRA deserves a permanent place in the armamentarium of orthopedic surgeons and in the hand of experienced surgeons.

Examining the "revisability" benefit of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA) that is typically reserved for young active patients because it preserves bone. However, the benefits of HRA only hold true if conversion THA after failed HRA provides acceptable outcomes. AIM: To compare patient reported outcomes for conversion THA after HRA failure to primary THA. METHODS: A retrospective review of 36 patients (37 hips) that underwent conversion THA for failed HRA between October 2006 and May 2019 by a single surgeon was performed. Patient reported outcomes [modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score] were obtained via an email-based responder-anonymous survey. Outcomes were compared to normative data of a primary THA cohort with similar demographics. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing outcomes of conversion THA for adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) vs all other causes for failure. RESULTS: The study group had a lower mHHS than the control group (81.7 ± 13.8 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P < 0.01); however, both groups had similar UCLA activity levels (7.5 ± 2.3 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P = 0.51). Patients that underwent conversion for non-ATLR causes had similar mHHS (85.2 ± 11.5 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P = 0.11) and higher UCLA activity levels (8.5 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P < 0.01) compared to the control group. Patients that underwent conversion for ATLR had worse mHHS (77.1 ± 14.5 vs 90.2 ± 11.6, P < 0.01) and UCLA activity levels (6.1 ± 2.3 vs 7.2 ± 1.6, P = 0.05) when compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes equivalent to primary THA can be achieved following HRA conversion to THA. However, inferior outcomes were demonstrated for ALTR-related HRA failure. Patient selection and perhaps further studies examining alternative HRA bearing surfaces should be considered.

Advances in imaging for pre-surgical planning in hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Accurate preoperative templating is essential for the success of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). While digital radiograph is currently considered the gold standard, stereoradiograph and CT converted 3D methods have shown promising results. However, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the preferred modality for HRA templating, and angular measurements are often overlooked. Thus, this study aimed to: (1) compare the performances of different modality in implant sizing and angle measurements, (2) evaluate the measurement reproducibility, (3) assess the impact of severe osteoarthritis on femoral head sizing, and (4) based on the analysis above, explore the optimal imaging and planning strategy for HRA. HYPOTHESIS: An optimal imaging modality exists for HRA planning regarding implant sizing and angular measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative imaging data from seventy-seven HRA surgeries were collected. Three raters performed templating using digital radiograph, stereoradiograph, and CT converted 3D models. Measurements for femoral head size, neck-shaft angle, and calcar-shaft angle were obtained. The femoral head sizing was compared to the intraoperative clinical decision. The reproducibility of measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlations were examined between sizing disagreement and osteoarthritis grade (Tonnis Classification). RESULTS: Digital radiograph, stereoradiograph, and 3D techniques predicted one size off target in 27/77 (35%), 49/70 (70%), and 75/77 (97%) of cases, respectively, corresponding to 1.8±1.6 (0 to 5.67), 0.9±0.7 (0 to 2.67), and 0.4±0.4 (0 to 1.67) sizes off target, indicating statistically significant differences among all three modalities, with p-values all below 0.01. There were no statistically significant differences among the different modalities for angular measurements. Measurements showed moderate to excellent reproducibility (ICC=0.628-0.955). High-grade osteoarthritis did not impact image sizing in any modality (r=0.08-0.22, all p>0.05). DISCUSSION: CT converted 3D models were more accurate for implant sizing in HRA, but did not significantly outperform other modalities in angular measurements. Given the high costs and increased radiation exposure associated with CT, the study recommended using CT scans selectively, particularly for precise femoral head sizing, while alternative imaging methods can be effectively used for angular measurements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective comparative diagnostic study.

Comparisons of in-hospital complications between total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a less common but effective alternative method to total hip arthroplasty (THA) for hip reconstruction. In this study, we investigated the incidences of in-hospital complications between patients who had been subjected to THA and HRA. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample data that had been recorded from 2005 to 2014 was used in this study. Based on the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, patients who underwent THA or HRA were included. Data on demographics, preoperative comorbidities, length of hospital stay, total charges, and in-hospital mortality and complications were compared. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine whether different surgical options are independent risk factors for postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 537,506 THAs and 9,744 HRAs were obtained from the NIS database. Patients who had been subjected to HRA exhibited less preoperative comorbidity rates, shorter length of stay and extra hospital charges. Moreover, HRA was associated with more in-hospital prosthesis loosening. Notably, patients who underwent HRA were younger and presented less preoperative comorbidities but did not show lower incidences in most complications. CONCLUSIONS: The popularity of HRA gradually reduced from the year 2005 to 2014. Patients who underwent HRA were more likely to be younger, male, have less comorbidities and spend more money on medical costs. The risk of in-hospital prosthesis loosening after HRA was higher. The HRA-associated advantages with regards to most in-hospital complications were not markedly different from those of THA. In-hospital complications of HRA deserve more attention from surgeons.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty in women: A novel ceramic device enables near normal gait function.

BACKGROUND: Gait function improves after Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) but is not restored to normal levels. Metal-on-metal Resurfacing Arthroplasty (MoM-HRA) is an alternative to THA and has shown to restore normal levels gait function and physical activity but has been restricted to men owing to problems of metal-ion release. Ceramic HRA (cHRA) removes the cobalt-chrome bearing surfaces, thereby eliminating these specific metal-ion concerns and aiming to be safe for females. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference in gait function of female cHRA patients compared to female THA using subjective and objective measures? METHODS: Fifteen unilateral cHRA and 15 unilateral THA, age and BMI matched, completed patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oxford Hip Score, EQ5d and MET score) and underwent gait analysis using an instrumented treadmill pre- (2-10 weeks) and post-operatively (52-74 weeks). Maximum walking speed (MWS), Vertical GRF of the stance phase, GRF symmetry index (SI) and spatiotemporal gait measures were recorded. Patients were compared to age, gender and BMI healthy controls (CON). RESULTS: There were no differences in PROMs or gait function between groups pre-operatively. Post- operatively, cHRA had a higher MET score (11.2 vs 7.1, p = 0.02) and a higher MWS (6.2 vs 6.8 km/hr, p = 0.003) compared to THA. cHRA had a similar GRF profile to CON, whereas THA had a reduced push-off force at 70-77 % of the stance phase compared to CON. At faster walking speeds of 6 km/hr walking speed, THA displayed an asymmetric GRF profile (SI<4.4 %) whereas the cHRA patients continued to display a symmetrical gait profile. cHRA was able to increase step length from pre-op levels (63 vs 66 cm, p = 0.02) and produced a larger step length compared to THA (73 vs 79 cm, p = 0.02). SIGNIFICANCE: Female cHRA returned to levels of gait function and activity similar to healthy controls unlike female THA.

Novel Use of an Accelerometer to Assess Load Asymmetry Over Time After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge regarding usage of wearable technology to guide return to sport after hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). This study evaluated the use of accelerometers to identify when symmetry is restored between operative and nonoperative limbs. METHODS: A total of 26 primary HRA patients performed 5 validated physical tests before, 3 and 6 months after HRA: broad jump, double-leg vertical jump (DLVJ), hop test, lateral single-leg jump (LSLJ), and vertical single-leg jump. Impact load and average intensity data (g-force units) were collected using accelerometers. Strength data (pounds [lbs.]) for internal and external rotation were collected with a dynamometer. Univariate and correlation analyses analyzed interlimb asymmetries. RESULTS: At preoperation, there were significant impact load asymmetries for DLVJ (P = .008), hop test (P = .021), and LSLJ (P = .003) and intensity asymmetry for DLVJ (P = .010) and LSLJ (P = .003). At 3 months, there was impact load asymmetry for DLVJ (P = .005) and LSLJ (P = .005) and intensity asymmetry for broad jump (P = .020), hop test (P = .042), and LSLJ (P = .005). There were significant strength asymmetries at preoperation and 3 months postoperation for internal (P = .013) and external rotation (P = .037). All significant asymmetries indicated the nonoperative leg had greater output. No significant asymmetries were found for any exercises at 6 months postoperation. An increase in Harris Hip Score was significantly associated with a decrease in impact asymmetry (rs = -0.269, P = .006). CONCLUSION: Impact loads and strength reach interlimb symmetry at 6 months post-HRA. Wearable accelerometers provide useful metrics to distinguish limb asymmetries for recovery monitoring.

A meta-analysis assessing time for return to sport following hip resurfacing.

BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is associated with excellent functional outcomes and return to pre-disease level of activity. The time for return to sport (RTS) following HRA remains unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to establish the time for RTS following HRA. METHODS: A search was performed on PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for trials on HRA and RTS, in the English language, published from the inception of the database to October 2020. In addition, a manual search was performed of relevant sports medicine and orthopaedic journals, and the bibliographies reviewed for eligible trials. All clinical trials reporting on time to RTS following HRA were included. Data relating to patient demographics, methodological quality, operation type, RTS, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded by two independent reviewers. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting meta-analyses was used to undertake this study. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 1559 studies and nine further studies were found. Of these, 11 studies with a total of 659 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Two studies involving a total of 94 patients demonstrated an overall pooled proportion of 91.8% (95% CI 71.8-100) of patients RTS by three months post-operatively. Four studies including a total of 265 patients determined a pooled proportion of 96.8% (95% CI 91.0-99.7) of patients able to RTS by the 6-month post-operative stage. Pooled proportion analysis from all 11 studies comprising 659 patients showed 90.9% (95% CI 82.2-96.9) of patients were able to RTS by final follow up of 3 years. CONCLUSION: Pooled proportion analysis showed an increasing number of patients were able to RTS after HRA over the first one year after surgery. There remains marked inter and intra-study variations in time for RTS but the pooled analysis shows that over 80% of patients were able to RTS at 6 to 12 months after HRA. The findings of this meta-analysis will enable more informed discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about time for RTS following HRA.

The 50 Most-Cited Articles Regarding Hip Resurfacing.

Background: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is an accepted treatment option for young patients presenting with osteoarthritis of the hip. The purpose of this review was to evaluate and identify the top 50 most-cited articles pertaining to hip resurfacing, to help clinicians identify influential articles and navigate the literature more effectively. Material and methods: Clarivate Analytics Web of Science was used to identify all articles related to hip resurfacing. The screening was based on the number of citations for each article. The final list of articles was further reviewed, and further data including manuscript title, authors, total citation count, year of publication, journal, country of origin, and level of evidence were extracted. Results: The most-cited publication was "Pseudotumors associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings", which was cited 704 times. The average total number of citations per publication was 203. The most prolific publication year was 2008 with 8 publications, and the most recent article was published in 2012. The journals with the most attributable publications were Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and Clinical and Orthopedic Related Research. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the most-cited articles pertaining to hip resurfacing. Level of evidence: III.

The metabolic equivalent of task score : a useful metric for comparing high-functioning hip arthroplasty patients.

AIMS: This study investigates the use of the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score in a young hip arthroplasty population, and its ability to capture additional benefit beyond the ceiling effect of conventional patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: From our electronic database of 751 hip arthroplasty procedures, 221 patients were included. Patients were excluded if they had revision surgery, an alternative hip procedure, or incomplete data either preoperatively or at one-year follow-up. Included patients had a mean age of 59.4 years (SD 11.3) and 54.3% were male, incorporating 117 primary total hip and 104 hip resurfacing arthroplasty operations. Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and the MET were recorded preoperatively and at one-year follow-up. The distribution was examined reporting the presence of ceiling and floor effects. Validity was assessed correlating the MET with the other scores using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and determining responsiveness. A subgroup of 93 patients scoring 48/48 on the OHS were analyzed by age, sex, BMI, and preoperative MET using the other metrics to determine if differences could be established despite scoring identically on the OHS. RESULTS: Postoperatively the OHS and EQ-5D demonstrate considerable negatively skewed distributions with ceiling effects of 41.6% and 53.8%, respectively. The MET was normally distributed postoperatively with no relevant ceiling effect. Weak-to-moderate significant correlations were found between the MET and the other two metrics. In the 48/48 subgroup, no differences were found comparing groups with the EQ-5D, however significantly higher mean MET scores were demonstrated for patients aged < 60 years (12.7 (SD 4.7) vs 10.6 (SD 2.4), p = 0.008), male patients (12.5 (SD 4.5) vs 10.8 (SD 2.8), p = 0.024), and those with preoperative MET scores > 6 (12.6 (SD 4.2) vs 11.0 (SD 3.3), p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: The MET is normally distributed in patients following hip arthroplasty, recording levels of activity which are undetectable using the OHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):317-326.

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty provides excellent long-term survivorship and function in patients with a good-sized femoral head : results of a single, non-designer surgeon's cohort.

AIMS: To establish the survivorship, function, and metal ion levels in an unselected series of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties (HRAs) performed by a non-designer surgeon. METHODS: We reviewed 105 consecutive HRAs in 83 patients, performed by a single surgeon, at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years (9.3 to 19.1). The cohort included 45 male and 38 female patients, with a mean age of 49.5 years (SD 12.5). RESULTS: At the time of review 13 patients with 15 hips had died from causes unrelated to the hip operation, and 14 hips had undergone revision surgery, giving an overall survival rate of rate of 86.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.2 to 89.1). The survival rate in men was 97.7% (95% CI 96.3 to 98.9) and in women was 73.4% (95% CI 70.6 to 75.1). The median head size of the failed group was 42 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 42 to 44), and in the surviving group was 50 mm (IQR 46 to 50). In all, 13 of the 14 revised hips had a femoral component measuring ≤ 46 mm. The mean blood levels of cobalt and chromium ions were 26.6 nmol/l (SD 24.5) and 30.6 nmol/l (SD 15.3), respectively. No metal ion levels exceeded the safe limit. The mean Oxford Hip Score was 41.5 (SD 8.9) and Harris Hip Score was 89.9 (14.8). In the surviving group, four patients had radiolucent lines around the stem of the femoral component, and one had lysis around the acetabular component; eight hips demonstrated heterotopic ossification. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the existing understanding that HRA provides good long-term survival and function in patients with adequate-sized femoral heads. This is evidenced by a 97.7% survival rate among men (larger heads) in our series at a mean follow-up of 14.9 years. Failure is closely related to head sizes ≤ 46 cm. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):68-76.