BackgroundThe Nordic registry reports patients under 50 years old with total hip replacements realize only 83% 10-year implant survivorship. These results do not meet the 95% 10-year survivorship guideline posed by the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2014.MethodsThe purpose of this study is threefold: First, we evaluate if metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty meets these high standards in younger patients. Next, we compare outcomes between age groups to determine if younger patients are at higher risk for revision or complication. Lastly, we assess how outcomes between sexes changed over time. From January 2001 to August 2013, a single surgeon performed 1285 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings in patients younger than 50 years old. We compared these to an older cohort matched by sex and BMI.ResultsKaplan-Meier implant survivorship was 96.5% at 10 years and 96.3% at 12 years; this did not differ from implant survivorship for older patients. Implant survivorship at 12 years was 98 and 93% for younger men and women, respectively; survivorship for women improved from 93 to 97% by using exclusively Biomet implants. There were four (0.3%) adverse wear-related failures, with no instances of wear or problematic ion levels since 2009. Activity scores improved from 5.4 ± 2.3 preoperatively to 7.6 ± 1.9 postoperatively (p < 0.0001), with 43% of patients reporting a UCLA activity score of 9 or 10.ConclusionsHip resurfacing exceeds the stricter 2014 NICE survivorship criteria independently in men and women even when performed on patients under 50 years old.

This study demonstrates a superior outcome for cases of osteonecrosis with uncemented hip resurfacings compared to cases employing hybrid devices.

BackgroundArthritis secondary to developmental hip dysplasia often mandates implant surgery at a relatively young age. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), compared with standard stemmed total hip arthroplasty (THA), affords a more active lifestyle including extreme-motion activities but stimulates concerns pertaining to implant failure.MethodsWe addressed the primary modes of failure through a series of interventions, including a new guideline for achieving proper implant alignment through intraoperative x-rays. We then compared two sequential cohorts in a single-surgeon practice: patients with developmental dysplasia who underwent HRA before (Group 1; 121 hips in 105 patients) and after (Group 2; 242 hips in 210 patients) June 2008, at which time the four interventions were all in place.ResultsImplants in Group 2 failed less frequently within two years (0.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.002) and were more likely to have projected seven-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship (99 % vs. 89 %, p < 0.0001 by log-rank test). Patients in Group 2 were more likely to have normal metal ion levels (77 % vs. 56 %, p = 0.0008) and optimum metal ion levels (99 % vs. 86 %, p = 0.0008). Patients in Group 2 also benefited from a 19-min decrease in mean operation time, a 45 % decrease in mean estimated blood loss, and a 0.9-day decrease in mean hospital stay (p < 0.0001 in each instance).ConclusionsWe believe the interventions reported here, combined with sufficient surgeon experience and properly designed implants, afford patients with mild developmental dysplasia a more active lifestyle with favorable implant survival.

Introduction: Patients with hip arthritis due to Legg-Calvé-Perthes (LCP) and slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) pose altered femoral anatomy, making hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) technically complicated. We examined implant survival and clinical symptoms in patients with a history of LCP or SCPE who underwent HRA for end-stage osteoarthritis. Methods: Data was collected for patients who underwent HRA for osteoarthritis due to LCP ( n = 59) or SCFE ( n = 32). Harris Hip Scores (HHS), UCLA activity scores, and radiographs were evaluated pre and postoperatively. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Tests and Kaplan-Meier Survivorship curves were used to analyse data. Results: Survivorship for freedom from revision or clinical failure was 93.55(95% CI, 78.47–98.18) at 5.79 years, up until the most recent follow-up of 11.23 years. There were 3 failures: 1 LCP due to instability at 2.4 years, 1 SCFE due to femoral neck fracture at 1 month, and another SCFE due to unexplained pain at 5.8 years. Five patients, 1 LCP and 4 SCFE, had retained hardware prior to surgery; 4 had their hardware removed during surgery. Postoperatively HHS and UCLA activity scores increased ( p < 0.0001, for both measures). Leg-length discrepancy improved preoperatively from 7.9 (0.0–32) mm to 0.65 (0.0–10) mm postoperatively ( p < 0.0001). Follow-up radiographs of all non-failure HRA patients revealed implants to be in good alignment with no indication of loosening. Conclusion: Although HRA in SCFE and LCP patients increases technical difficulties, findings demonstrate excellent implant survival, no intraoperative complications, and improvements in leg-length discrepancies and clinical functional outcomes.

When experienced surgeons use refined and proper surgical technique, women show promise as excellent candidates for hip resurfacing as an alternative treatment for their debilitating hip conditions.