Hip resurfacing in a district general hospital: 6-year clinical results using the ReCap hip resurfacing system

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of our study was to prospectively report the clinical results of 280 consecutive hips (240 patients) who received a ReCap Hip Resurfacing System implant (Biomet Inc., Warsaw, USA) in a single district general hospital. Literature reports a large variation in clinical results between different resurfacing designs and published results using this particular design are scarce.MethodsMean follow up was 3.3 years (1.0 to 6.3) and four patients were lost to follow-up. All patients were diagnosed with end-stage hip osteoarthritis, their mean age was 54 years and 76.4% of all patients were male.ResultsThere were 16 revisions and four patients reported a Harris Hip Score <70 points at their latest follow up. There were no pending revisions. Kaplan-Meier implant survival probability, with revision for any reason as endpoint, was 93.5% at six years follow-up (95%-CI: 88.8-95.3). There were no revisions for Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris (ARMD) and no indications of ARMD in symptomatic non-revised patients, although diagnostics were limited to ultrasound scans.ConclusionsThis independent series confirms that hip resurfacing is a demanding procedure, and that implant survival of the ReCap hip resurfacing system is on a critical level in our series. In non-revised patients, reported outcomes are generally excellent.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00603395

10-year results of ReCap hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a non-designer case series

“…2,6,10,[21][22][23][24] In contrast, implants like the BHR and ReCap Magnum have shown good to excellent results. 1,5,10 We strongly believe that HRA still has a place in the armamentarium of hip surgeons and should be considered in a well selected cohort of young and active patients who stand to benefit from the low-wear and femoral bone preservation that this procedure can offer.…”

“…Its incidence in the literature is 2.3–10.1%. 1 Progressive neck narrowing results in excessive torque on the head-stem interface, leading to fracture at the head stem interface. Similar cases of head stem fracture have also been reported with the Cormet hip resurfacing implant.…”

“…The suggested advantages of this procedure are conservation of femoral bone stock, a lower dislocation rate, a low-wear bearing surface and ease of revision of the femoral component. 1 Concern regarding the occurrence of adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings has limited their indications and use. 2 Occurrence of ARMD has been attributed to volumetric wear and poor orientation of components.…”

“…4 Some implants such as the ReCap Magnum (Biomet, UK) and Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (Smith & Nephew) have demonstrated good short to medium- term results. 1,5 In contrast, the Articular Surface Resurfacing implant (ASR) (DePuy, UK) has been recalled because of poor results. 6 Prosser et al 7 reported that in the Australian Joint registry, HRA had a better 10-year survivorship in males under 60 years compared to total hip arthroplasty (THA).…”

Adverse reaction to metal debris after ReCap-M2A-Magnum large-diameter-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty

“…The first reports of early clinical success of ReCap-M2a-Magnum THA ( Kostensalo et al 2012 , Meding et al 2012 ) and ReCap-Magnum hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) ( Gross and Liu 2012 , van der Weegen et al 2012 ) were promising. The short-term survival of the ReCap-M2a-Magnum THA was comparable to that of conventional cemented THA based on data from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register ( Mokka et al 2013 ).…”