BHR, Birmingham, Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, Failure rate, Health, Hip Replacement, hip resurfacing, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Medicine, NephewSmith, Oxford, oxford hip score, science, Smith & Nephew
26% Failure in Female Smith & Nephew BHR’s – and higher failure in older males…
The ten-year survival of the Birmingham… [J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012] – PubMed – NCBI.
The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: An independent series.
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.
Recent events have highlighted the importance of implant design for survival and wear-related complications following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
The mid-term survival of the most widely used implant, the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR), has been described by its designers.
The aim of this study was to report the ten-year survival and patient-reported functional outcome of the BHR from an independent centre. In this cohort of 554 patients (646 BHRs) with a mean age of 51.9 years (16.5 to 81.5) followed for a mean of eight years (1 to 12), the survival and patient-reported functional outcome depended on gender and the size of the implant.
In female hips (n = 267) the ten-year survival was 74% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 7%, the mean Oxford hip score (OHS) was 43 (sd 8) and the mean UCLA activity score was 6.4 (sd 2).
[Earlsview note – this means 26% failure rate for female recipients of BHR’s]
In male hips (n = 379) the ten-year survival was 95% (95% CI 92.0 to 97.4), the ten-year revision rate for pseudotumour was 1.7%, the mean OHS was 45 (sd 6) and the mean UCLA score was 7.6 (sd 2).
In the most demanding subgroup, comprising male patients aged < 50 years treated for primary osteoarthritis, the survival was 99% (95% CI 97 to 100).
[Earlsview note – so how many young men? Also this means that the failure rate in the >50 yr males was higher than 5% reported above. BUT what was it?]
This study supports the ongoing use of resurfacing in young active men, who are a subgroup of patients who tend to have problems with conventional THR.
In contrast, the results in women have been poor and we do not recommend metal-on-metal resurfacing in women. Continuous follow-up is recommended because of the increasing incidence of pseudotumour with the passage of time.
- [PubMed – in process]
- 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)
- Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years (earlsview.com)
- Ban ‘failing’ hip resurfacing implants for women, say surgeons | Mail Online (earlsview.com)
- Hip Resurfacing Draws Warning After Study Published in Lancet – NYTimes.com (earlsview.com)
- Early Clinical Failure of the Birmingham Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Is Associated With Metalosis and Soft Tissue Necrosis (earlsview.com)
- Hip resurfacing ‘prone to fail’ (bbc.co.uk)
- Interview with Derek McMinn and Ronan Treacy – Orthopaedic Product News (earlsview.com)
- Unacceptably High Failure Rates Found In Hip Resurfacing Operations (medicalnewstoday.com)
- Hip replacement method ‘unacceptable’ for women (telegraph.co.uk)
- Smith & Nephew BHR – A benign psoas mass following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip (earlsview.com)
Pingback: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery | Article « Earl's View
Pingback: Moving Toward Sex-Specific Surgery? The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery | Article « Earl's View
Pingback: Growing metal-on-metal hip controversy threatens to swallow more device makers | MassDevice – Medical Device Industry News « Earl's View
Pingback: Smith & Nephew sued for BHR Defects — Cheryl and Ken elmore (plaintiffs) vs. Smith & Nephew « Earl's View
Pingback: David’s BHR Horror Story – Smith & Nephew Floodgate will open soon… « Earl's View
Pingback: Ed Confirms that S&N BHR MoM’s are Ticking Bombs… « Earl's View