Birmingham hip resurfacing.

Birmingham hip resurfacing

THE PREVALENCE OF FAILURE

A. D. Carrothers, MBChB, MRCS, DipIMC, RCSEd, Orthopaedic Specialist Registrar1; R. E. Gilbert, MBBS, BMedSci(Hons), FRCS(Trauma&Orth), Orthopaedic Specialist Registrar1; A. Jaiswal, MBBS, MS(Orth), MRCS, Registrar, Trauma & Orthopaedics1; and J. B. Richardson, MBChB, FRCS, MD, Professor of Trauma & Orthopaedics1

1Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Gobowen, Oswestry SY10 7AG, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr A. D. Carrothers; e-mail: carrothersandrew@hotmail.com

Abstract

Despite the increasing interest and subsequent published literature on hip resurfacing arthroplasty, little is known about the prevalence of its complications and in particular the less common modes of failure. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of failure of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and to analyse the reasons for it.

From a multi-surgeon series (141 surgeons) of 5000 Birmingham hip resurfacings we have analysed the modes, prevalence, gender differences and times to failure of any hip requiring revision.

To date 182 hips have been revised (3.6%).

The most common cause for revision was a fracture of the neck of the femur (54 hips, prevalence 1.1%), followed by loosening of the acetabular component (32 hips, 0.6%), collapse of the femoral head/avascular necrosis (30 hips, 0.6%), loosening of the femoral component (19 hips, 0.4%), infection (17 hips, 0.3%), pain with aseptic lymphocytic vascular and associated lesions (ALVAL)/metallosis (15 hips, 0.3%), loosening of both components (five hips, 0.1%), dislocation (five hips, 0.1%) and malposition of the acetabular component (three hips, 0.1%). In two cases the cause of failure was unknown.

Comparing men with women, we found the prevalence of revision to be significantly higher in women (women = 5.7%; men = 2.6%, p < 0.001). When analysing the individual modes of failure women had significantly more revisions for loosening of the acetabular component, dislocation, infection and pain/ALVAL/metallosis (p < 0.001, p = 0.004, p = 0.008, p = 0.01 respectively).

The mean time to failure was 2.9 years (0.003 to 11.0) for all causes, with revision for fracture of the neck of the femur occurring earlier than other causes (mean 1.5 years, 0.02 to 11.0). There was a significantly shorter time to failure in men (mean 2.1 years, 0.4 to 8.7) compared with women (mean 3.6 years, 0.003 to 11.0) (p < 0.001).

Received September 25, 2009.

Accepted May 18, 2010.

Related articles

• Early Clinical Experience With the Use of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System | Orthopedics (earlsview.com)
• Despite the Reasons AGAINST – FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Conditional Approval of Smith & Nephew’s BIRMINGHAM HIP Resurfacing Technology (earlsview.com)
• FDA Pre Market Approval (PMA) of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) System – P040033 (earlsview.com)
• Patients with metal-on-metal hips being contacted after UK officials issue alert | Orthopedics Today (earlsview.com)
• SUMMARY OF SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS DATA PREMARKET APPROVAL APPLICATION P040033 SMITH & NEPHEW BHR BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING SYSTEMf (earlsview.com)
• Smith & Nephew – BHR PMA – FIRST OF A KIND PMA – WHO PULLED WHAT STRINGS???? (earlsview.com)
• GOOD NEWS – Smith and Nephew sees a decline Birmingham hip implant business (earlsview.com)
• Revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty with a bone-conserving short-stem implant (earlsview.com)
• What’s new in hip op surgery | Arthritis Research UK (earlsview.com)
• 26% Failure in Female Smith & Nephew BHR’s – The ten-year survival of the Birmingham… [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI (earlsview.com)