Orthopaedics T 901.396.2121
Smith & Nephew, Inc. F 901.399.5187
1450 Brooks Road www.smith-nephew.com
Memphis, TN 38116
News

Memphis, Tenn. (May 3, 2010) – Recent new data¹ presented at this year’s American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting reinforces the BIRMINGHAM HIP™ Resurfacing (BHR) System as a safe and effective hip resurfacing device. The multi-site study, performed by orthopedic surgeons practicing at nine Canadian academic centers, showed that three years after surgery, 99.91% of their 3,400 hip resurfacing patients experienced no implant failure due to metal wear debris. The BHR Hip was the most used resurfacing device in this study.

A MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP OF FOUR YEARS

¹ Department of Orthopaedic, Surgery, Apollo Speciality Hospital 320, Padma Complex, Chennai 600 035, Tamil Nadu, India.

We performed 96 Birmingham resurfacing arthroplasties of the hip in 71 consecutive patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. A modified neck-capsule-preserving approach was used which is described in detail. The University of California, Los Angeles outcome score, the radiological parameters and survival rates were assessed. The mean follow-up was for 5.4 years (4.0 to 8.1). All the patients remained active with a mean University of California, Los Angeles activity score of 6.86 (6 to 9). 

Excerpt:

"For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing."

For full article click here

K. DE SMET, C. PATTYN, R. VERDONK
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent - Belgium

ABSTRACT: Early excision of heterotopic ossification was performed in 8 patients at an average of 10.2 months after total hip arthroplasty. All patients received a single irradiation dose of 7Gy the day before the operation, followed by oral indomethacin (3x25mg/day) for six weeks. Continuous passive mobilization under epidural anesthesia was started immediately post-operatively. At an average follow-up of 2 years none of them had radiographic or clinical evidence of recurrence. Consequently we recommend resection as soon as there are severe clinical implications, even when bone scans indicate immaturity of the heterotopic ossification and provided that the resection is combined with proper non-surgical treatment consisting of irradiation and oral indomethacin and immediate extensive rehabilitation
program. (Hip International 2002; 4: 383-7)

KEY WORDS: Heterotopic ossification, Resection, Total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between ceramic-on-ceramic total hip replacement and metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty in comparable groups of young active patients at a 3- to 6-year follow-up. The first 250 patients (mean age, 49.54 years) of a series of 930 resurfacing arthroplasties were compared clinically and functionally with a series of 190 patients (mean age, 46.76 years) with ceramic-on-ceramic uncemented total hip prostheses. The total Harris hip score was 97.9 in the resurfacing group vs 92.1 in the ceramic group. In the resurfacing group, 60.71% had a strenuous activity level vs 30.43% in the ceramic group.

Added March 2, 2010

A surgeon with extensive hip resurfacing experience finds its indications narrower than for THR.

Orthopedic surgeons experienced in hip resurfacing know that performing the procedure correctly is associated with a fairly steep learning curve. To help minimize that curve, a surgeon speaking at Orthopedics Today Hawaii 2010 discussed how his resurfacing results improved over time.

“There is no need for every surgeon to repeat the learning curve. Because there is now so much information out there, if you know what was learned by those before you, you do not have to repeat the learning curve,” said Thomas P. Schmalzried, MD, section editor for joint replacement on the Orthopedics Today Editorial Board.