Tags
arthritis, BMJ, hip, Hip Replacement, hip resurfacing, metal, Orthopedic surgery, University of Warwick
Hip replacement and resurfacing equally effective at improving joint function | Arthritis Research UK.
Patients who undergo total hip replacement or resurfacing appear to have similar outcomes at one year after surgery, according to a recent study published in the British Medical Journal.
Researchers at the University of Warwick, led by professor of trauma and orthopaedic surgery Matthew Costa, set out to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hip replacement with resurfacing in patients with severe arthritis.
Hip replacement surgery replaces the entire damaged joint with an artificial one, whereas resurfacing only removes the damaged surfaces of the bones inside the joint, after which they are replaced with a metal surface.
The latest study involved 126 patients in the UK, all of whom were over 18 years of age and had severe arthritis of the hip joint.
Of these, 60 underwent hip resurfacing while the remaining 66 had a total hip replacement.
Publishing their findings in the British Medical Journal, the study authors revealed there was no difference in hip function between the two treatment groups after one year had passed.
There was also no overall difference in complication rates between those who had a hip replacement and those who underwent resurfacing.
However, those who received a prosthetic joint were more likely to experience wound complications, while those who underwent resurfacing had an elevated risk of blood clots.
The study authors concluded: “No evidence of a difference in hip function was seen in patients with severe arthritis of the hip, one year after receiving a total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty.
“The long-term effects of these interventions remain uncertain.”
Arthritis Research UK has convened a task force to look at the long-term complications of metal-on-metal hip replacements in response to public health concerns regarding the implants, specifically the risk of metal ions seeping into the body, and the high failure rate of certain types of prosthesis.
Related articles
- Hip Replacement Crisis in Europe Causes Demand for Medical Device Registry (earlsview.com)
- Dodgy hips in recall Today’s News – The Mercury – The Voice of Tasmania (earlsview.com)
- Metal-Free, High-Tech Composite Hip Implant – TMD – Today’s Medical Developments (earlsview.com)
- UK ALERT – MITCH TRH acetabular cups/MITCH TRH modular heads (earlsview.com)
- Hip Replacement Surgery-Physiotherapy-Exercises-Ergonomic-Do’s-and-Don’ts | Medindia (earlsview.com)
- BBC News – Surgeons call for end to metal hip replacements (earlsview.com)
- Preparing for Hip Replacement Surgery (earlsview.com)
- Failure Rates High in All-Metal Hip Implants, Not Just DePuy (earlsview.com)
- Willowbrook Man Pain-Free After New Direct Anterior Approach Hip Surgery – Downers Grove news, photos and events – TribLocal.com (earlsview.com)
- Serious concerns over Metal on Metal Hips – British Medical Journal (earlsview.com)
What is the point of a study done to show there was no difference in hip function after ONE year? Check in with your patients at 5 and 10 years and see what you find.
I think this means that there is no quick recovery benefit from the Resurfacing so a THR is just as good?
Hi Earl,
I didn’t get that recovery was the focus of this trial. As I read it, they were looking to see if there was any difference in the functionality of the hip joint in Resurfs v THR. But in regard to recovery time, I have had both and I don’t think one is much different from the other. In my opinion, this study proves nothing. Where are the studies of the differences in outcomes at 3, 5, 7, and 10 years? Where are the studies in which they compare male v. female and factor in the difference in age and activity level? Perhaps it is because meaningful studies would show the failure rate for resurfs. as much higher than “anticipated” and doctors like the one who conducted this study would lose a major source of funding for his clinical studies?
Pingback: What You Need to Know About Total Hip Replacement Surgery « Earl's View
Pingback: Golf After A Hip Injury Or Hip Replacement Surgery « Earl's View
Pingback: Smoking Hikes Risk of Knee and Hip Replacement Failure in Arthritis Patients « Earl's View
Pingback: Total hip arthroplasty for failed aseptic Austin Moore prosthesis Bhosale P, Suryawanshi A, Mittal A – Indian J Orthop « Earl's View
Pingback: Size a hurdle but United States citizen gets new hip joint – Times Of India « Earl's View
Pingback: Barbara’s tragic story – Bad Hips From Birmingham « Earl's View
Pingback: Man, 93, undergoes hip replacement successfully – Mumbai – DNA « Earl's View
Pingback: FDA Pre Market Approval (PMA) of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System – P040033 « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? « Earl's View
Pingback: Outcomes of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: A Systematic Review « Earl's View
Pingback: Metal on metal hip resurfacing using the BHR, Cormet 2000, or Conserve Plus devices does not meet CTAF criteria 3-5 for safety, efficacy and improvement in health outcomes for patients as an alternative to total hip arthroplasty « Earl's View
Pingback: Hip resurfacing: A boon for Boomers or too risky? « Earl's View
Pingback: METAL ON METAL TOTAL HIP RESURFACING AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY « Earl's View