Open Access

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients younger than 50 years: a retrospective analysis

1285 cases, 12-year survivorship
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research201712:79

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-017-0579-y

Received: 14 January 2017

Accepted: 14 May 2017

Published: 2 June 2017

Abstract

Background

The 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

Kaplan-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.

Conclusions

Hip resurfacing exceeds the stricter 2014 NICE survivorship criteria independently in men and women even when performed on patients under 50 years old.

Keywords

Hip resurfacing Metal-on-metal Younger patients Hip arthroplasty

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is durable in elderly populations [1] but does not meet functional demands or durability requirements for younger patients [25]. In 2014, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) raised their benchmark criteria for hip implants from 90 to 95% 10-year survivorship. The Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel listed only 32 THA femoral stems which met this new, stricter benchmark [6], with potentially far fewer meeting NICE criteria in younger patients.

Sir John Charnley warned against performing THA in younger patients, citing that the procedure was not robust enough [7]; as an increasing number of younger patients demanded better, longer-lasting solutions [8], hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) emerged as an alternative, bone-preserving option. It is well known THA implants display markedly lower survivorship in patients younger than 50 years old [24]. In the Scandinavian registry, 10-year implant survivorship for these patients was only 83% [5]. Considering underestimation of failure in the registry, 10-year survivorship could be lower. In a literature review by De Kam on THA in patients under 50 [9], only 15 of 37 papers met the outdated NICE criteria, and of these, only two studies met the new standard.

Experts attribute reduced implant survivorship in younger patients to more complex procedures and naturally higher activity levels [3, 10, 11]. The most common diseases of the younger hip include osteonecrosis, dysplasia, Legg-Perthes disease, and post-traumatic arthritis, all of which carry a worse prognosis [12]. Aside from having higher expectations, younger patients often require eventual revision; in an analysis of over 109 studies on patients under 50, only 37 had a mean survivorship greater than 10 years [9]. These combined risks make THA challenging in patients under 50.

McMinn et al. [13] and Amstutz [14] introduced metal-on-metal (MOM) HRA as a bone-preserving, temporizing measure to delay disease progression in younger patients, but HRA far surpassed these modest, early goals. Recent advancements in MOM bearing design have improved durability and lowered wear rate, with many studies reporting 93% implant survivorship for patients in their 40s [1517]. Furthermore, several studies suggest that gait characteristics are more nearly normal in those receiving HRA versus THA [18, 19], appealing especially to younger patients.

HRA, compared to THA, allows for a more natural reconstruction of the hip and endows biomechanics more closely resembling a normal, healthy joint. The naturally stable bearing size and femoral offsets are preserved, leading to superior hip stability [20, 21]. The lack of a large stem has resolved issues with thigh pain [10, 22]. Gait lab studies demonstrate THA patients do not fully load the operative leg and take smaller strides than HRA patients [18]. These combined advantages of HRA allow more nearly normal function in younger patients who often still desire to participate in high range-of-motion (ROM) activities and impact sports. The available scientific studies amply confirm that HRA is a more functional arthroplasty than THA [2325].

Despite many HRA studies with excellent outcomes, registry results have been mixed. While the Australian registry [26] confirms 10-year HRA implant survivorship surpasses that of THA in men under 60, the reverse is true for women and older men. In the UK’s National Joint Registry, Smith et al. demonstrated HRA only outlives THA in men with larger implant sizes [27], but the study included inexperienced surgeons performing an average of only 2.6 HRA cases a year. Publications from inexperienced surgeons with weak results, high failure rates from poorly designed implants, and excessive publicity on adverse wear-related failures (AWRF) from a small number of outlier centers [28] have called into question the value of HRA. However, experienced surgeons, including the present senior author (TPG), have routinely surpassed HRA and THA outcomes in arthroplasty registers [5, 27, 29]. Due to the mixed available results, the scarcity of published outcomes on younger patients, and the poor viability of THA in younger patients, we aim to establish a successful example for HRA implant survivorship in patients under 50 years old.

In 2001, the senior author began performing HRA on the basis that bone preservation in younger patients is paramount. We present the results of 1285 HRA procedures performed on patients under 50 years old and compare these data with a demographically similar, older cohort to evaluate several hypotheses:
  1. 1.

    MOM HRA meets the 2014 NICE criteria in our patients under 50 years old.

     
  2. 2.

    There is no difference in HRA implant survivorship due to age.

     
  3. 3.

    Outcome disparity between sexes of our younger cohort has improved.

     

Methods

Patients and follow-up

We used OrthoVault (Midlands Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, Columbia, SC), our database of over 4200 HRA procedures, to retrospectively identify 1285 consecutive cases from January 2001 to August 2013 in 1062 patients under 50 years old at the time of surgery as our group 1 study cohort. Ages for group 1 ranged from 11 to 49 years. From the same date range, we identified 1984 HRA devices in 1614 patients as the older control group (group 2); ages among the group 2 cohort ranged from 50 to 78 years. These patients received surgery at the age of 50 years or older. All patients had a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Between January 2001 and January 2005, the primary surgeon performed 372 HRA procedures in 329 patients using the hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 resurfacing system. Subsequently, from January 2005 to March 2007, the primary surgeon performed 739 HRA procedures in 652 patients using the hybrid Biomet ReCap™-Magnum™ implant system. Lastly, we shifted to our current uncemented method, and from March 2007 to August 2013, 1803 patients received 2158 fully porous-coated Biomet ReCap™-Magnum™ resurfacings.

Table 1 presents demographic information for both cohorts. The average age at the time of surgery for group 1 was 44 ± 6 years and for group 2 was 57 ± 4 years. Bone density was greater for younger patients (see “Statistical methods”). Sex distribution and BMI were not statistically different between the two groups. Group 1 presented a higher percentage of patients with more complex diagnoses, which are those that typically result in worse outcomes.
Table 1

Group demographics for patients under and over 50 years old

 

Group 1, <50 (N = 1285)

Group 2, ≥50 (N = 1984)

p value

Sex (no. of hips)

 Male

951 (74%)

1426 (72%)

0.1802

 Female

334 (26%)

558 (28%)

Deceased#

10 (0.8%)

29 (1.5%)

0.0784

F/U mean years

3.4 ± 2.98

2.8 ± 2.59

<0.0001*

Lost to F/U

17 (1.3%)

23 (1.2%)

0.6745

Case date range

1/2001–8/2013

Age (years)

44 ± 6.02

57 ± 4.23

<0.0001*

BMI

28 ± 4.92

28 ± 4.56

0.0750

T-score

0.26 ± 1.36

−0.14 ± 1.18

<0.0001*

Uncemented fixation (no. of hips)

776 (60%)

1380 (70%)

<0.0001*

10-year survivorship (no. of hips)

1234 (96%)

1924 (97%)

0.1443

Diagnosis (no. of hips)

 Dysplasia

149 (12%)

214 (11%)

0.4715

 Osteoarthritis (OA)

866 (67%)

1589 (80%)

<0.0001*

 Osteonecrosis (ON)

107 (8.3%)

63 (3.2%)

<0.0001*

 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

9 (0.7%)

2 (0.1%)

0.0039*

 Post-trauma

40 (3.1%)

20 (1.0%)

<0.0001*

 Legg-Calve-Perthes disease (LCP)

32 (2.5%)

7 (0.4%)

<0.0001*

 Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE)

12 (0.9%)

9 (0.5%)

0.0930

 Other

22 (1.7%)

21 (1.1%)

0.1096

Implants (no. of hips)

 Corin Cormet 2000

187 (14%)

185 (9.3%)

<0.0001*

 Biomet ReCap™-Magnum™ hybrid

330 (26%)

409 (21%)

0.0007*

 Biomet ReCap™-Magnum™ uncemented

768 (60%)

1390 (70%)

<0.0001*

ASA score

1.6 ± 0.57

1.7 ± 0.58

<0.0001*

Femoral component <48 mm (no. of hips)

199/973 (20%)

334/1641 (20%)

0.9522

Femoral component size

50.0 ± 3.92

50.2 ± 3.53

0.1793

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

#indicates deaths unrelated to the patients' hip arthroplasties

This study is a level II, retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Approval for this study and manuscript was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Providence Health in Columbia, SC.

Implant systems

The primary surgeon (TPG) performed HRAs using three unique implant systems in a consecutive fashion. We began using the hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 (Corin, Cirencester, UK) implant system in March 2001 as part of a multicenter US Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. This device was fully approved in 2007 but is no longer sold. We partnered with Biomet (now Zimmer Biomet) to develop the hybrid ReCap™-Magnum™ (Biomet, Warsaw, IN), which we began using in 2005. We further collaborated with Biomet to develop the fully porous-coated ReCap™-Magnum™, which became available in March 2007; we have used this exclusively for all resurfacing cases after January 2008. In the USA, employing the ReCap™-Magnum™ system for HRA is considered off-label use. We published comprehensive metallurgy and design details for all implant systems previously [30, 31].

Procedure

The primary surgeon (TPG) performed all HRA operations through the posterior approach as described previously [32]. We have taken normalized to standing intraoperative radiographs since 2009 to confirm the acetabular component position meets our relative acetabular inclination limit (RAIL) guideline [33]. Table 2 presents a summary of surgical information.
Table 2

Surgical summary for two groups

Variable

Group 1

Group 2

p value

Length of incision (in.)

4.4 ± 1.44

4.3 ± 0.77

0.0100*

Operation time (min)

106 ± 19.4

102 ± 28.8

<0.0001*

Estimated blood loss (mL)

208 ± 171

183 ± 137

<0.0001*

Hospital stay (day)

2.1 ± 1.11

2.1 ± 5.17

1.0000

Transfusion received (no. of cases)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.1%)

0.2543

Transfusion volume (cm3)

375 ± 0

Outpatient (no. of cases)

10 (0.8%)

21 (1.1%)

0.4179

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

Postoperative protocol

Patients progress to weight-bearing as tolerated unless they present notably low preoperative bone density. Most patients use crutches for 2 weeks and a cane for 2 weeks thereafter. We require no formal physical therapy following hospital discharge. Patients may progress to moderate aerobic exercise at 6 weeks and unlimited activity at 6 months after surgery. The establishment of a multimodal pain management protocol and comprehensive blood management protocol has accelerated patient recovery and eliminated the need for transfusion, allowing many patients to receive HRA as an outpatient procedure since 2012.

Metal ion testing

The OrthoVault database facilitates collection of metal ion test results, which we routinely requested from all patients at 2 years postoperatively since 2007; we also requested metal ion results from all patients operated on prior to this time at least once. Metal ion levels are useful indicators of potential failure from excessive implant wear [34] even before the onset of symptoms. We converted serum and plasma test results for cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) to whole blood ion level values using Smolders’ method [35, 36] and subsequently used whole blood values for all comparisons. Based on previous research [3335], we define five ion level categories (Table 3): normal, optimal, acceptable, problematic, and potentially toxic.
Table 3

Whole blood metal ion reference table

 

Normala

Optimalb

Acceptablec

Problematicc

Potentially toxicb

Unilateral

 Co (μg/L)

<1.5

<4.0

4–10

10–20

>20

 Cr (μg/L)

<1.5

<4.6

4.6–10

10–20

>20

Bilateral

 Co (μg/L)

<1.5

<5.0

5–10

10–20

>20

 Cr (μg/L)

<1.5

<7.4

7.4–10

10–20

>20

aLaboratory normal for patients without metal bearings

bAccording to DeSmet/Van der Straeten [34, 35]

cAccording to our previous analysis

Clinical and radiographic analysis

We request patients return for an office visit or to complete a remote follow-up package at 6 weeks, 1 and 2 years, and every other year thereafter. Each follow-up comprises a clinical questionnaire, radiographic analysis, and a physical examination testing ROM and strength. Physical examinations are no longer necessary after the 1-year postoperative visit for patients completing remote follow-up. OrthoVault supported the collection of demographic, clinical, and radiographic data for all patients.

We use clinical questionnaires to collect information for calculating the following scores: Harris hip score (HHS) [37], University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score [38], and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores [39]. We use the HHS for quantitative measurement of overall clinical outcome, based on function and ROM. UCLA activity scores measure patient activity level on a scale of 1 to 10, for which 10 represents regular participation in impact sports. VAS pain scores provide a simple indication of overall pain on normal and worst days based on a scale of 0, or no pain, to 10, or maximum, debilitating pain.

Radiographs are obtained at every follow-up; these x-rays are analyzed for component position, shifting, and radiolucencies. We determine the acetabular inclination angle (AIA) by measuring the angle formed between a horizontal reference line running across the face of the inferior pubic rami and a measurement line running across the face of the acetabular component on the patient’s standing anterior-posterior x-ray (Fig. 1). All measurements were performed using OrthoVault and InteleViewer® (InteleRAD, Chicago, IL, USA).
Fig. 1

Pelvic radiograph acetabular inclination angle measurement lines. Anterior-posterior pelvis radiograph taken 5 years after a hybrid metal-on-metal Corin hip resurfacing on the right hip and 2 years after a hybrid metal-on-metal Biomet ReCap™ hip resurfacing on the left hip. Better AIA is noted in the most recent HRA on the patient’s left side

Statistical methods

Statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft® Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) and SAS® (SAS Institute Incorporated, Cary, NC, USA). All tests used a significance level of α = 0.05. Paired, two-tailed Student’s t tests were used to find significant differences between numeric results. Two-sample proportion Z-tests were performed to compare percentages. Kaplan-Meier (KM) implant survivorship curves were plotted using XLSTAT® (Addinsoft, New York, NY, USA), and log-rank and Wilcoxon tests were performed to determine significant difference in implant survivorship between groups.

Results

Survivorship

KM implant survivorship (Fig. 2) at 10 years was 96.5% and at 12 years was 96.3% for patients under 50. Overall survivorship also improved with each successive implant type (Fig. 3); for both age groups, the uncemented ReCap™-Magnum™ system exhibited significantly better survivorship than all other implants at 8 years (group 1 p < 0.0001, group 2 p = 0.001). Survivorship did not vary by age for any implant (log-rank p = 0.199 and Wilcoxon p = 0.206).
Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves for two study cohorts. Open circles represent deaths unrelated to the patients’ hip arthroplasties

Fig. 3

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves for patients under 50 grouped by implant. Open circles represent deaths unrelated to the patients’ hip arthroplasties. Asterisk represents statistical significance

Survival rates varied by sex (Fig. 4), with males displaying significantly greater implant survivorship at 12 years than females in both group 1 (98 vs. 93%, respectively, log-rank and Wilcoxon p < 0.0001) and group 2 (99 vs. 95%, respectively, log-rank and Wilcoxon p < 0.0001). Sex disparity decreased with each successive implant type. Disparity in male-female results was minimal in cases with the uncemented Biomet ReCap™-Magnum™, with an 8-year failure rate of 99.5 and 97.0% for group 1 males and females, respectively (log-rank and Wilcoxon p = 0.01) (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves for under 50 grouped by sex. Open circles represent deaths unrelated to the patients’ hip arthroplasties. Asterisk represents statistical significance

Fig. 5

Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship curves by sex for Biomet implants only. Asterisk represents statistical significance

Failures

Table 4 details modes of failure and indicates for each failure type whether there is or is not significant difference. The only statistically significant difference in occurrence of any failure mode was that of recurrent instability, with which was greater in group 1 (0.2% in group 1 and 0.0% in group 2, p = 0.03). AWRF was rare (0.3% in group 1 and 0.4% in group 2, p = 0.84) with no instances of wear in cases performed after July 2009; there was no significant difference in AWRF between age groups (p = 0.84). One of four total cases of unexplained pain occurred in group 1 (p = 0.55). This female patient received revision surgery 1 year after her original operation. Preceding revision, whole blood Co and Cr ion levels were 10.8 and 4.5 μg/L, respectively. Her CT scan prior to revision revealed a small, 3-cm fluid collection anteriorly. While this evidence suggests mild AWRF, implants were found well fixed at the time of surgery, with minimal osteolysis of the acetabulum and femur. All symptoms resolved by 3 months post-revision, and the patient scored a 100 HHS on their most recent 2-year follow-up.
Table 4

Failures for two study groups

Type

Group 1

Group 2

p value

No. of cases

1285

1984

1) Acetabular failures

 Adverse wear

4 (0.3%)

7 (0.4%)

0.8415

 Loose acetabular component

6 (0.5%)

4 (0.2%)

0.1802

 Failure of acetabular ingrowth

10 (0.8%)

9 (0.5%)

0.2340

 Acetabular component shift

0 (0%)

1 (0.1%)

0.4237

2) Femoral failures

 Early femoral neck fracture

5 (0.4%)

15 (0.8%)

0.1902

 Loose femoral component

12 (1.0%)

9 (0.5%)

0.0930

 Femoral head collapse

2 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

0.7642

3) Other failures

 Unexplained pain

1 (0.1%)

3 (0.2%)

0.5552

 Late infection

2 (0.2%)

0 (0%)

0.0784

 Early infection

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

0.7566

 Late fracture

2 (0.2%)

1 (0.1%)

0.3320

 Recurrent instability

3 (0.2%)

0 (0%)

0.0316*

 Psoas tendonitis

1 (0.1%)

0 (0%)

0.2150

 Other failuresa

0 (0%)

4 (0.2%)

0.1074

Total failures

48 (3.7%)

58 (2.9%)

0.2005

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

aOther causes include diarrhea, UTI, urinary retention, squeaking implant, frostbite, and other uncommon causes not built into the database

Complications and reoperations

Table 5 lists complications, and Table 6 details reoperations. Group 2 patients were more likely to experience acetabular component shift not resulting in reoperation or revision than group 1 (0.9 vs. 0.2%, respectively, p = 0.007). All 21 recognized cases of acetabular shift occurred before 6 weeks and stabilized. All shifted components, with a single exception, became more horizontal than their initial position, and all patients presented optimal metal ion levels.
Table 5

Complications for two study groups

Type

Group 1

Group 2

p value

No. of cases

1285

1984

Complications

 1) Acetabular complications

  Loose acetabular component

1 (0.1%)

0 (0%)

0.2150

  Acetabular component shift

2 (0.2%)

18 (0.9%)

0.0071*

 2) Femoral complications

  Loose femoral component

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

0.7566

  Femoral component shift

0 (0%)

1 (0.1%)

0.4237

 3) Other complications

  Psoas tendonitis

1 (0.1%)

0 (0%)

0.2150

  Sciatic nerve palsy

3 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

0.3421

  Hip dislocation

4 (0.3%)

12 (0.6%)

0.2420

  Late fracture

2 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

0.6599

  Pulmonary embolus

3 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

0.3421

  Spinal headache

2 (0.2%)

1 (0.1%)

0.3320

  Embolic stroke

1 (0.1%)

2 (0.1%)

0.8337

  Unexplained pain

0 (0%)

3 (0.2%)

0.1645

  Psoas hematoma

1 (0.1%)

0 (0%)

0.2150

  Abductor tear

0 (0%)

3 (0.2%)

0.1645

  Deep vein thrombosis

2 (0.2%)

5 (0.3%)

0.5619

  Other complicationsa

1 (0.1%)

9 (0.5%)

0.0574

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

aOther complications include diarrhea, spinal headache, urinary retention, squeaking implant, and other uncommon causes not built into the database

Table 6

Reoperations for two study groups

Type

Group 1

Group 2

p value

No. of cases

1285

1984

Reoperations

 Femoral neck fracture

0 (0%)

1 (0.1%)

0.4237

 Early fracture

0 (0%)

1 (0.1%)

0.4237

 Late fracture

2 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

0.6599

 Fascial healing defect

1 (0.1%)

0 (0%)

0.2150

 Psoas tendonitis

1 (0.1%)

1 (0.1%)

0.7566

 Late infection

0 (0%)

2 (0.1%)

0.2543

 Early infection

2 (0.2%)

4 (0.2%)

0.7642

 Wound dehiscence

2 (0.2%)

2 (0.1%)

0.6599

 Other causesa

2 (0.2%)

0 (0%)

0.0784

aOther causes include suture reaction, frostbite, and other uncommon causes not built into the database

The overall rate of instability not resulting in revision surgery was 0.3% in group 1 and 0.6% in group 2 (p = 0.24). These were treated nonoperatively, and all patients scored a HHS ≥ 92 by 1-year post-revision and presented acceptable blood metal ion levels after surgery.

Ion data and adverse wear-related failure

Approximately 65% of patients from both groups complied with our request for metal ion levels (Table 7). Group 2 unilateral patients expressed slightly higher mean Cr levels (p = 0.05), although the difference in mean Cr levels was nonsignificant between the two bilateral cohorts (p = 0.28). Average Co ion levels were not statistically different between age groups for either unilateral (p = 1.0) or bilateral (p = 0.26) patients. Cobalt levels in 825 group 1 patients were optimal in 99% of unilateral cases and 97% of bilateral cases, with no levels greater than 10 μg/L, excluding revised cases. All patients presenting with AWRF in group 1 had ion levels ≥14 μg/L and were revised successfully. Four patients from group 1, and seven from group 2, have developed AWRF to date (p = 0.84) (Table 2). The most recent case that resulted in ion levels greater than 10 μg/L was a case from June 2009; this was the last case to require revision for AWRF. Seven years have elapsed, and in this study, 1530 cases have been performed since that time.
Table 7

Whole blood metal ion results

Under 50 case study

Variables

Group 1 (under 50)

Group 2 (over 50)

p values between group 1 and group 2

Unilateral (N = 494)

Bilateral (N = 331)

p value

Unilateral (N = 836)

Bilateral (N = 559)

p value

Unilateral 1 vs. 2

Bilateral 1 vs. 2

Co (μg/L)

1.1 ± 0.83

1.8 ± 1.25

<0.0001*

1.1 ± 0.93

1.9 ± 1.31

<0.0001*

1.000

0.2633

Cr (μg/L)

0.9 ± 0.84

1.6 ± 1.32

<0.0001*

1.0 ± 0.93

1.5 ± 1.32

<0.0001*

0.0498*

0.2750

Follow-up date (years)

4.4 ± 2.58

4.9 ± 2.75

0.0080*

3.9 ± 2.38

4.4 ± 2.55

0.0002*

0.0003*

0.0062*

No. (%) of patients tested

825 (64%)

1359 (70%)

0.0108*

No. (%) of levels converted

117 (24%)

72 (22%)

0.5157

191 (23%)

138 (25%)

0.4295

0.7279

0.3173

Normal, no. (%)

393 (80%)

169 (51%)

<0.0001*

657 (79%)

234 (42%)

<0.0001*

0.6745

0.0078*

Optimal, no. (%)

488 (99%)

320 (97%)

0.0366*

815 (97%)

533 (95%)

0.0300*

0.1052

0.3371

Acceptable, no. (%)

6 (1.2%)

11 (3.3%)

0.0366*

21 (2.5%)

26 (4.7%)

0.0300*

0.1052

0.3371

Problematic, no. (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1.000

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1.000

1.000

1.000

Potentially toxic, no. (%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1.000

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1.000

1.000

1.000

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

Clinical data

Clinical outcomes for unrevised cases are presented in Table 8. Postoperative average HHS (97 ± 7) was similar for the two groups (p = 1.0). Postoperative UCLA activity scores were significantly higher for group 1 (p = 0.003). VAS pain scores on regular days were statistically equivalent between the two groups (p = 1.0). VAS pain scores on worst days were lower for group 2 (p < 0.0001).
Table 8

Clinical follow-up information for two study groups

Variable

Group 1—under 50

Group 2—over 50

p value

Preoperative

 HHS

58 ± 6.47

49 ± 7.56

<0.0001*

Postoperative

 HHS

97 ± 6.80

97 ± 6.60

1.000

 UCLA activity score

7.6 ± 1.91

7.4 ± 1.90

0.0033*

 High-impact UCLA, no. of cases (%)

230/539 (43%)

377/1031 (37%)

0.0183*

 VAS pain: regular

0.2 ± 0.80

0.2 ± 0.74

1.000

 VAS pain: worse

1.5 ± 2.07

1.1 ± 1.78

<0.0001*

 Combined ROM

258 ± 46.1

264 ± 41.9

<0.0001*

Radiographic data

 AIA

39.6 ± 8.14

39.6 ± 8.15

1.000

 Under RAIL, no. of hips (%)

1138/1238 (92%)

1807/1918 (94%)

0.0366*

 Radiolucency, no. of hips (%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (0.2%)

0.1645

 Osteolysis, no. of hips (%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1.000

Statistically significant p values are italicized and denoted by an asterisk (*)

Radiographic data

Radiographic data for unrevised cases are presented in Table 8. The mean AIA was 40° for both groups (p = 1.0). Fewer group 1 cases met our RAIL criteria for proper component position (92 vs. 94%, p = 0.04). There were no cases exhibiting lysis (p = 1.0), while three cases in the older cohort displayed limited partial radiolucency (p = 0.16).

Surgical data

Length of incision, operation time, and estimated blood loss were greater in group 1 (p = 0.01, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.0001, respectively). However, no transfusions were required, and hospital stay did not differ between the two age groups (p = 1.0).

Discussion

These data evince the validity of all of our original hypotheses. In the largest single-center report of hip arthroplasty yet published for patients under 50 years old, we have demonstrated that MOM hip resurfacing exceeds the stricter 2014 NICE benchmark of 95% 10-year implant survivorship. We achieved 96.5% at 10 years and 96.3% at 12 years in this unselected, consecutive group of 1285 patients under 50 years of age.

Similar to other studies [4043], we confirmed that hip resurfacing has better implant survivorship in men (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 4). However, disparity in results by sex was reduced when we considered only the latest uncemented Biomet cohort, with 8-year survivorship at 99.5% in males and 97.0% in females; per the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel [6], both groups are independently on track to exceed the 2014 NICE criteria. These data show that HRA in women now achieves similar outcomes as in men and that the sex disparity has nearly been resolved.

From the current data, it becomes evident that as hip resurfacing matures, as the scientific body of evidence in resurfacing grows, as failure modes are studied and solutions are found, as implant designs improve, and as surgeon experience grows, clinical outcomes and implant survivorship improve. It is impossible to determine the exact interplay of these complex factors without further studies, but Fig. 2 undeniably shows dramatic improvement in overall implant survivorship over the 12-year period that encompasses this study. In this short time, 8-year implant survivorship increased from 88 to 99% (log-rank p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon p < 0.0001). While implant survivorship in THA is generally much lower in younger patients, this does not hold true for hip resurfacing at our center. KM implant survivorship curves comparing our younger and older patient cohorts (Fig. 2) show no statistical difference in failure rates. These KM data show hip resurfacing implants in younger, active patients are at no higher risk of failure.

It is noteworthy that we have achieved 2014 NICE survivorship in our younger, high-risk population, as this group typically presents poor outcomes in THA [2, 9]. Our study produced better outcomes than most THA reports and compare favorably to other smaller, youth-centered resurfacing studies, such as those by Sayeed et al., Haddad et al., and Krantz et al. (Table 9) [11, 23, 44]. Similar survivorship in patients under 50 has been achieved with the Birmingham hip resurfacing, with one report of 100% 10-year survivorship in 20 hips [23] and another report of 96% 10-year survivorship in 447 hips [45]. We are aware of two recent series of uncemented THAs that have achieved similar success, including a report by Facek et al. [46] of 120 consecutive, ceramic THAs in patients under 55 with 96.5% 10-year implant survivorship and another report by Murphy and Murphy [47] of 220 alumina ceramic THAs in patients under 50 with 94.9% 15-year survivorship.
Table 9

Literature comparison of survivorship between treatment options for younger patients

Study

Procedure

Prosthesis

Date range

Diagnosis (years)

Patient cohort

Avg FU (years)

Survivorship

Hips

Female (%)

FU

Rate (%)

Jameson et al. [51]

HRA

Birmingham

2004–2007

<55

254

39

2.3

3.8

97

Matharu et al. [45]

HRA

Birmingham

1997–2006

<50

447

28

10.1

10

96

Woon et al. [52]

HRA

Conserve Plus

1996–2010

<30

53

39

8.2

8

95

Amstutz et al. [53]

HRA

Conserve Plus

1998–2007

<50

350

25

5.5

5

97.8

Krantz et al. [44]

HRA

Conserve Plus and Durom

2007–2008

<30

24

32

4.2

4.9

100

Haddad et al. [23]

HRA

Birmingham

1999–2002

<55

40

25

12

10

100

Matharu et al. [54]

HRA

Conserve Plus and Corin Cormet 2000

2001–2007

<25 + osteonecrosis

20

50

5.2

8.6

100

Matharu et al. [54]

THA

Stryker Accolade II stem and Trident cup

2001–2007

<25 + osteonecrosis

20

38

5.2

7.3

93

Wroblewski et al. [55]

THA

Charnley

1962–1990

<51

1434

61

15

17

83

Current study

HRA

Corin Surface and Biomet ReCap™

2008–2013

<50

1285

26

3.4

12

96

Outcomes for resurfacing are mixed, with registries typically showing lower implant survivorship than published series from dedicated resurfacing surgeons. Hip resurfacing requires a significant learning curve compared to THA [48] and is seldom taught in residency programs.

The most common failure mode for either group was loosening of the femoral component (1.0% in group 1 and 0.5% in group 2). Converting to exclusively uncemented implants eliminated this failure mode. The second most common cause for revision was failure of acetabular ingrowth (0.8% in group 1 and 0.5% in group 2). After introduction of the acetabular component with Magnum™ Tri-Spike supplemental fixation in high-risk cases in 2007, this failure mode reduced from 1.1 to 0.5%. Since 2010, there have been no instances of failure of acetabular ingrowth in patients under 50 years old.

AWRF is a well-publicized and widely feared complication of MOM HRA. Particle-driven tissue inflammation has long been associated with polyethylene, polymethyl methacrylate, and metallic debris between modular junctions [28]. Tissue inflammation due to metallic particles from excessive MOM bearing wear came to widespread attention around 2007 [34]. At first, many speculated that these represented allergic reactions to metal [22]. Later, studies revealed the cause of the problem as edge-loading on the malpositioned acetabular component [35]. When this occurs, the fluid film lubrication of the hip joint breaks down, and a high wear rate ensues. Metal particles settle in surrounding tissue, activating an inflammatory response. Poor implant design and improper acetabular component positioning cause this abnormal edge-loading wear; thus, smaller bearing sizes, used primarily in women, are more prone to edge-loading because of their lower coverage arc. In response to these findings, we published the RAIL guideline [33], which indicates safe positions for all implant sizes. Patients under 50 presented significantly reduced ion levels when their implant was placed under the RAIL limit, with a mean Co level of 1.4 compared to 2.1 in patients over RAIL (p < 0.0001). No instances of AWRF, problematic ion levels, or potentially toxic ion levels occurred in cases under RAIL, which has been achieved in all cases since 2009. These results justify that AWRF is completely preventable in MOM implants, even in cases previously considered high-risk.

This study contains a few notable limitations. First, all HRAs reported herein were performed by a single, experienced HRA surgeon. Registry results are inferior, but numerous publications from experienced HRA surgeons show similar survivorship. Although studies have shown proper HRA surgical technique requires an extended learning curve [27, 48, 49], this curve is expected to shorten with increased availability of HRA research. The next limitation derives from excellent patient outcomes, which recently have been so good that our current clinical measurement, the HHS, suffers from a ceiling effect [50]; a younger patient who outperforms an older patient with a clinical HHS of 100 would still score the same, limiting comparison. Finally, a larger proportion of group 2 received the superior uncemented Biomet ReCap™ device (p < 0.0001), potentially skewing results in favor of the older patient cohort. Despite this, postoperative results for the younger study group were similar to, and in many instances better than, those for group 2.

Conclusions

We make the following conclusions:
  • In the largest (n = 1285) single series of hip arthroplasty ever published for patients under 50, MOM HRA exceeds the 2014 NICE implant survivorship criteria, with 96.5% at 10 years and 96.4% at 12 years.

  • Results in women have improved rapidly, reducing the disparity in outcomes between sexes; furthermore, after eliminating the initial Corin cohort, 10-year implant survivorship for men and women Biomet implants both exceed the 2014 NICE criteria independently at 99 and 97%, respectively.

  • There is no difference in survivorship by age among our patients (96.5 vs. 96.3% at 12 years for under and over 50, respectively).

  • AWRF is a rare complication (0.3%). Blood ion testing is an effective screening tool. When the acetabular component position meets RAIL guidelines, this failure mode is completely avoidable. None have occurred in 1530 consecutive cases since July 2009.

Abbreviations

AWRF: 

Adverse wear-related failure

Co: 

Cobalt

Cr: 

Chromium

HHS: 

Harris hip score

HRA: 

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty

KM: 

Kaplan-Meier

MOM: 

Metal-on-metal

NICE: 

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

RAIL: 

Relative acetabular inclination limit

ROM: 

Range of motion

THA: 

Total hip arthroplasty

UCLA: 

University of California, Los Angeles

VAS: 

Visual analog scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Funding for this entirety of this project was provided by the primary surgeon (TPG).

Availability of data and materials

This publication presents summary data. The corresponding raw data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TPG performed all surgeries and follow-ups, took radiographic measurements, designed questionnaires, developed the present study design, and made multiple rounds of edits on this manuscript. MDG is responsible for data collection, for statistical analyses, for writing most of the content herein, and for manuscript development and submission. Both authors were involved in data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, and final revisions. Both authors have read and approved the final submitted manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have previously received royalties and research support (<$50,000) from Zimmer Biomet and Corin during preceding studies.

Consent for publication

No individual patient data has been presented. Consent to collect patient information was retrieved for each case prior to surgery.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

IRB approval was granted for this study by the Institutional Review Board at Providence Hospital of Columbia, SC.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Midlands Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery

References

  1. Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2004;86–A:28–39. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00273.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Innmann MM, Weiss S, Andreas F, Merle C, Streit MR. Sports and physical activity after cementless total hip arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016;26:550–6. doi:10.1111/sms.12482.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ollivier M, Frey S. Does impact sport activity influence total hip arthroplasty durability? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3060–6. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2362-z.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Havelin LI, Robertsson O, Fenstad AM, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Furnes O. A Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). J Bone Jt Surg. 2011;93:13–9. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00951.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Mäkelä KT, Matilainen M, Pulkkinen P, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI, Engesaeter L, et al. Countrywise results of total hip replacement. An analysis of 438,733 hips based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:107–16. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893498.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel. http://www.odep.org.uk. Accessed 22 May 2017.
  7. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip—a new operation. Lancet. 1961;1:1129.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Pritsch M, Breusch S, Thomsen M, Ewerbeck V, et al. Uncemented grit-blasted straight tapered titanium stems in patients younger than fifty-five years of age. Fifteen to twenty-year results. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2009;91:1432–9. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00297.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. De Kam D. Total hip arthroplasties in young patients under 50 years: limited evidence for current trends. A descriptive literature review. Hip Int. 2011;21:518–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker RP, Pollard TCB, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Jt Surg [Br]. 2011;93:158–63. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Sayeed SA, Johnson AJ, Bs DAS, Gross TP, Mont MA. Hip resurfacing in patients who have osteonecrosis and are 25 years or under. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011:1582–8. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1629-5
  12. Torchia ME, Klassen RA, Bianco AJ. Total hip arthroplasty with cement in patients less than twenty years old. J Bone Jt Surg. 1996;78:995–1003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. McMinn DJW, Treacy RBC, Lin K, Pynsent PB. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329S:S89–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Amstutz HC. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg. 1984.Google Scholar
  15. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Hip resurfacing results for osteonecrosis are as good as for other etiologies at 2 to 12 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:375–81. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1077-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Beaulé PE. Surface arthroplasty of the hip: a review and current indications. Semin Arthroplasty. 2005;16:70–6. doi:10.1053/j.sart.2004.12.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Mont M a, Seyler TM, Marker DR, Marulanda G a, Delanois RE. Use of metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88 Suppl 3:90–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00543.
  18. Aqil A, Drabu R, Bergmann JH, Masjedi M, Manning V, Andrews B, et al. The gait of patients with one resurfacing and one replacement hip: a single blinded controlled study. n.d. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1819-3
  19. Mont MA, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Starr R, Erhart J, Bhave A. Gait analysis of patients with resurfacing hip arthroplasty compared with hip osteoarthritis and standard total hip arthroplasty. n.d. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.03.010
  20. Gross TP, Liu F, Webb LA. Clinical outcome of the metal-on-metal hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 hip resurfacing system. An up to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:533–538.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.019.
  21. Gross TP, Liu F. Current status of modern fully porous coated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:181–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.010.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Howie DW. Metal-on-metal resurfacing versus total hip replacement-the value of a randomized clinical trial. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:195. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2004.12.001.
  23. Haddad FS, Konan S, Tahmassebi J. A prospective comparative study of cementless total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing in patients under the age of 55 years. Bone Jt J 2015;97–B:617–22. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B5.
  24. Mont MA, Schmalzried T. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Jt Surg. 2008;90:3–11. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00750.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Barrack RL. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing offers advantages over traditional arthroplasty in selected patients. Orthopedics. 2007;30.Google Scholar
  26. Prosser GH, Yates PJ, Wood DJ, Graves SE, De Steiger RN, Miller LN. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision 12,093 replacements from the Australian Joint Registry. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:66–71. doi:10.3109/17453671003685434.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Howard PW, Blom AW. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;380:1759–66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60989-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Williams S, Leslie I, Isaac G, Jin Z, Ingham E, Fisher J. Tribology and wear of metal-on-metal hip prostheses: influence of cup angle and head position. JBJSAm. 2008;90:111–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00485.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Gerllick G, Soderman P. The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register. J Bone Jt Surg. 2004;86.Google Scholar
  30. Gaillard MD, Gross TP. Reducing the failure rate of hip resurfacing in dysplasia patients: a retrospective analysis of 363 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:251. doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1095-7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Leary R, Gaillard MD, Gross TP. Comparison of cemented and bone ingrowth fixation methods in hip resurfacing for osteonecrosis. J Arthroplasty. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.028.
  32. Gross TP, Liu F. Minimally invasive posterior approach for hip resurfacing. Tech Orthop. 2010;25:39–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu F, Gross TP. A safe zone for acetabular component position in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: winner of the 2012 HAP PAUL award. J Arthroplast. 2013;28:1224–30. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.033.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Langton DJ, Joyce TJ, Mangat N, Lord J, Van Orsouw M, De Smet K, et al. Reducing metal ion release following hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:169–80. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2011.01.006. viii.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Smolders JMH, Bisseling P, Hol A, Van Der Straeten C, Schreurs BW, van Susante JLC. Metal ion interpretation in resurfacing versus conventional hip arthroplasty and in whole blood versus serum. How should we interpret metal ion data? Hip Int. 2011;21:587–95. doi:10.5301/HIP.2011.8643.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Der Straeten C. Systemic symptoms of metal toxicity in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Palm Beach ISTA Meet. 2013.Google Scholar
  37. Harris W. Endosteal errosion in association with stable uncemented femoral components. J Bone Jt Surg. 1990.Google Scholar
  38. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast. 1998;13:890–5. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott J. Graphic representation of pain. Pain 1976;2. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(76)90113-5
  40. Gross TP, Liu F. Prevalence of dysplasia as the source of worse outcome in young female patients after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2012;36:27–34. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1290-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TVF. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing. An independent center analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Carrothers a D, Gilbert RE, Jaiswal a, Richardson JB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.23504.
  43. Witzleb WC, Hanisch U, Ziegler J, Guenther K-P. In vivo wear rate of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: a review of 10 retrieved components. J Arthroplast. 2009;24:951–6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.022.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Krantz N, Miletic B, Migaud H, Girard J. Hip resurfacing in patients under thirty years old: an attractive option for young and active patients. Int Orthop. 2012;36:1789–94. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1555-0.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Matharu, Uppal HS, Peterson BE, Misfeldt ML, Della Rocca GJ, Volgas DA, et al. The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Jt J 2013. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B9.
  46. Facek M, Tilley S, Walter WK, Zicat B, Walter WL. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings in young patients. Bone Jt J. 2013;95:1603–9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.30917.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy S, Murphy W. Alumina ceramic ceramic THA at 15 years in patients less than 50. New Engl. Baptist Hosp. 2014;98-B(Suppl 3):69.Google Scholar
  48. Nunley RM, Zhu J, Brooks PJ, Engh CAJ, Raterman SJ, Rogerson JS, et al. The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:382–91. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1106-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6 Suppl 1):36–43.Google Scholar
  50. Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW, Bhandari M, Haverkamp D. The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta Orthop. 2010;81:703–7. doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.537808.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TVF. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing. An independent center analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:50–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Woon RP, Johnson AJ, Amstutz HC. The results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients under 30 years of age. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1010–4. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.043.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Amstutz HC, Ball ST, Le Duff MJ, Dorey FJ. Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Matharu GS, Mcbryde CW, Pynsent WB, Pynsent PB, Treacy RBC, Matharu GS. The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively. Bone Jt J. 2013;95:1172–7. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA. Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty in patients under the age of 51 years. J Bone Jt Surg. 2002;84–B:540–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement