Conversion of Failed Hip Resurfacings to Total Hip Arthroplasty- A Favorable Solution with Satisfactory Outcomes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-923911/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Conversion of Failed Hip Resurfacings to Total Hip Arthroplasty- A Favorable Solution with Satisfactory Outcomes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-923911/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Hip resurfacing had been utilized since the 1950s. The concept favored for young active patients owing to its proposed advantages. Revision rate of hip resurfacing in most national registries nearly 3.5%. Conversion to total hip replacement may be the correct option for old patients and those whose activity levels changed and the need for hip resurfacing no longer required.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess the mid-term outcomes of converting failed hip resurfacing arthroplsty to total hip arthroplasty. Primary outcomes included improvement of Oxford, WOMAC, Harris and UCLA hip scores. Also; radiological follow-up has been evaluated for component stability or signs of loosening. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection, residual groin pain, and heterotopic ossification. Most of patients (22 patients (88%) reported relief of pain and good to excellent patient satisfaction.

Study design: Prospective case series study.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic IV.

Patients and Methods:

Twenty–five patients (fifteen males) with failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty converted to total hip arthroplasty enrolled in this study. Mean age 56.8 years. Mean time to revision 36.8 months. Indications for revision included: femoral neck fractures (10 cases), femoral neck thinning (3 cases), component loosening (4 cases) component dislocation (2 cases) persistent groin pain and clicking (3 cases) and wear of components (3 cases). Nineteen patients revised both components while remaining six underwent revision of femoral component only.

Results:

The average duration of follow up was 26.8 months (28-48 months). The study was an intermediate term follow-up. Clinical outcome evaluated through Oxford, WOMAC, Harris and UCLA hip scores. Preoperative scores 21.3, 78.3, 35,7 and 2 respectively improved to 39.8, 11.1, 92.3 and 7 respectively at last follow-up representing statistically significant improvements over pre-operative scores (p < 0.0001 for each score) Radiological follow-up evaluated for component stability or signs of loosening. No cases of neurological, vascular, deep infection or implant failure. There were 3 cases (3%) with complications. one case complicated by surgical site infection with serous drainage for more than seven days and treated with oral antibiotics and daily dressings. One case had residual groin pain, and third case had mild heterotopic ossification. All patients were satisfied particularly by their pain relief. Average post operative Oxford, Harris and WOMAC hip scores were 17.4, 89.8 and 6.1 respec-

tively. representing statistically significant improvements over pre operative scores (p < 0.0001 for each score)

Conclusions: study shows conversion of hip resurfacing to THA has high satisfaction rates. These results compare favorably with those for revision total hip arthroplasty

Orthopedics

Orthopedic Surgery

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty

femoral neck fractures

component loosening

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has become increasingly popular over the last decade [1]. The proposed advantages of that concept over total hip arthroplasty include femoral bone stock preservation, loading of proximal femur in a physiologic manner so; less exposure to stress shielding effect, lacking of femoral reaming or cementation minimize risk of embolization, increase construct stability(due to the near-anatomical diameter of the articulating surface compared with the 28- or 32-mm total hip arthroplasty (THA) components) and improved proprioception of the hip joint with the ability of the patient to resume higher demand activities.[13,19] In addition; if conversion to total hip necessary; it would be relatively straightforward and less technically demanding. The previous advantages in addition to good clinical results of surface arthroplasty have led to an increasing number of joint replacements in younger active patients. [4,16] However; this age group faces an increased risk of early implant failure owing to their high activity level [8] With the increasing number of primary THA procedures being performed and the decreasing age of patients undergoing the procedure, there is an inevitable associated increase in revision burden for arthroplasty surgeons.

While early results of hip resurfacing have been promising, a group of complications have been reported which require revision. These include femoral neck fractures [24] and recurrent pain and effusions thought to be related to an aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesion syndrome [26]. Large destructive lesions (pseudo tumors) have also been reported which lead to soft tissue loss around the hip joint [10].

This prospective study evaluates the short-term and mid-term functional outcome of a series of (25) patients who underwent conversion of a hip resurfacing to a total hip replacement and reviews some of previous literatures and studies concerning this issue.

Between May 2015 and December 2019, Twenty–five patients (fifteen males) had been enrolled in this study. Mean age 56.8years (41-69 years). Distribution of age shown Table (1) average time to revision was 36.8 months (9-55 months). Indications for revision involved: femral neck fractures 10 cases(40%), femoral neck thinning 3 cases(12%), component loosening 4 cases(16%), component dislocation two cases(8%) persistent pain and clicking 3 cases(12%) and sever wear of the components of resurfacing prosthesis 3 cases(12%). In all cases laboratory investigations had been done to exclude infection .Demographic distribution of patients Table (2).

Radiographic evaluation through plain imaging Studies included standard anteroposterior and lateral x-rays of the pelvis and affected hip respectively. Computed tomography (CT) scans was obtained for all cases to assess proposed component size, bone quality and possible acetabular defects confirming their 3-dimensional extent and actual size.

Nineteen patients (76%) had revision of both components while the remaining six patients (24%) underwent revision of the femoral component only. Table(3) The study was initiated after receiving approval from the institutional ethics committee for research in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Also, a written consent had been obtained from the patient for participating in the study.

Templating was done for all cases to detect near size of implanted component, detecting any bone defect and possibilities of bone grafting. For Nineteen patients who had revision of both components, acetabular cup 2-4 mm larger than the extracted one was utilized and coupling metal on ultra high molecular weight polyethylene used in seventeen cases while ceramic on ceramic couple used in two cases. For cases of femoral component revision a matching modular large cobalt chrome metal head was fixed to an uncemented stem. Average femoral component size used for females was 44mm (39-52mm) and for males 49(45-58mm). Average acetabular component extracted 50.9 mm(44-60mm) while the average implanted component 56.2(53-60 mm)

Low molecular weight heparin (Enoxaparine) given twelve hours before surgery in a dose of 40 mg S C and started again 12 hours postoperative and then given daily until the patient was discharged from the hospital and continued for 35 days.

Pre-operative I.V antibiotic (1gm 3rd generation cephalosporin) was administered to all patients. Preparation of two units of whole fresh blood to be ready for use according to intra-operative blood loss and preoperative patient hemoglobin level.

Surgical Procedure:

In our study, operative technique was tailored case by case. Epidural anesthesia used in 15 cases, spinal anesthesia in 4 patients and general anesthesia utilized in 6 patients.

Posterior approach utilized in nine cases, posterolateral approach used in eleven cases while modified Harding approach used in five cases. After skin incision; culture swabs of components, surrounding soft tissue and samples of any effusions were taken for microbiological examination. Massive metallosis of the periprosthetic soft tissue observed in three cases and proper debridment had been done. Figure (1)

In cases where both components were revised the femoral neck osteotomy was performed (after dislocation of the joint) directly below the femoral head component and the healthy bone from the femoral head and neck was used as an autograft for the acetabular or femoral reconstruction. The acetabular component was removed by use of a fulcrum consisting of trial acetabular liner and curved osteotomies or cob elevator to allow relatively easy removal of the shell with minimal bone loss. Any bone defect was dealt with either morsellised autograft or femoral head allograft. Femoral canal preparation done as for primary hip arthroplasty. A straight, tapered reamer inserted into the femoral canal followed by incremental rasps as appropriate. Once the stem was firmly seated, a large diameter cobalt chrome head with a modular neck applied and reduction was performed. Suction drain was inserted deep to fascia lata followed by proper closure of the wound.

Postoperative I.V. antibiotic was administered (1 gram 3^rd generation cephalosporin and continued for 3 days. Patients revised without bone grafting were encourage to mobilize by 2nd day postoperative. Patient was trained to bear as much weight as he can with the aid of a walker for 3 weeks then using a cane for another 3 weeks then full weight bearing without any aid. Those revised with bone grafting were encouraged for partial weight bearing for the first six weeks.

First dressing done after 48-72 hours according to the amount of blood drained. Average hospital stay was 5 days (4-10 days)

Follow –up regimen:

Patients were followed up clinically and radiologically at 3 weeks for 3 months and every 3 months for one year and periodically every 2 years with average duration of follow-up 26.8 months (28-48 months).Clinical follow-up through was assessed through recording Oxford, Harris, WOMAC and UCLA activity hip scores. Radiological assessment done to determine the over-all alignment of the limb, the respective size, fit and positions of the prosthetic components relative to the bone, the presence of radiolucent lines in zones adjacent to the components , lytic lesions or spot welds at the bone prosthesis interface as well as trabeculae extending to the uncemented stem .

Statistical analysis:

Descriptive data were expressed as frequency and percentages, and means with SD. A value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 20. 0

This prospective study was conducted to evaluate the functional outcome of a case series of 25 patients who underwent conversion of failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to a total hip arthroplasty Evaluation Parameters included, Oxford, Harris and Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC), UCLA activity hip scores, relief of pain, return to previous activities and patient satisfaction. The study enrolled Twenty-Five patients (15 males). There was a male predominance (60% of the patients) in our study with male to female ratio of 1.5:1.

Intraoperatively, small amount of effusion observed in 3 cases which was blackish in color while in another 4 cases black staining of the pseudo capsule and periarticular soft tissues suggesting deposition of metallosis.

The mean operative time of the patients was 55.4± 6.0 minutes. Mean blood loss was 400 ±10.6 ml.

Clinical outcome assessed through average Oxford , WOMAC, Harris and UCLA activity hip scores. Oxford hip score improved from 21.2 preoperatively to 39.8 postoperatively at last follow-up , WOMAC hip score improved from preoperative 73.7 to 11.1 at last follow-up visit while Harris hip score improved from 35.7preoperatively to 92.3 at last visit of the patient with p<0.00001 in all parameters. The average UCLA activity score increased from 2 to 7 estimating good satisfaction of patient. No cases of neurological, vascular or deep infection occurred. Distribution of outcome according to the indication of revision illustrated in Table (4).

Complications

There were 3 cases (12%) in our study with complications. one case complicated by surgical site infection with serious drainage for more than seven days and was treated with oral antibiotics and daily sterile dressings until the wound closed completely. One case had residual groin pain, and third case had mild heterotopic ossification. The later was treated by Indomethcin 25mg oral capsule three times daily (total 75mg) which continued for 4 weeks. Also a physiotherapy program was encouraged to improve hip range of motion

Revision rates of hip resurfacing arthroplsty(HRA) have been reported to be higher than primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and in most national registries accounts to be 3.5% over 15 years. ^[3] Revision of HRA is associated with a major risk of 5- year re-revision of 11%, which is much higher than the 2.8% revision risk of a primary THA ^[7] .It seems logic as HRA mostly indicated in younger age group who are characterized by higher level of both daily and sport activities. This is in addition to the specific design of the prosthesis .

In our study we aim at restoring the daily and sport activities of the patients for which they underwent their HRA surgery.

the most common indications for revision are Femoral neck fracture (incidence range 0.9-1.1%) owing to osteoporosis or notching of the femoral neck during surgery[2,9], component loosening, infection and metallosis with adverse local soft tissue reaction. ^[8]

Other risk factors that may propose to HRA failure and the need for revision include: age, Gender and implant factors. Increased age accompanied by poor bone quality which subject the patient to complications as femoral neck fractures, osteoporosis of femoral neck and aseptic loosening. Many studies emphasized that patients above 55 years had increased risk of complications. ^{[8, 11, 22]}. female gender is a risk factor for implant failure, with revision rates in females significantly increased compared to males (5.7 vs 2.6 %, p < 0.001). Many studies have shown that survival rate of HRA may reach 95 to 98 % at 10 years in male patients ^[20]. The previous study's factors are compatable with our study with some deviation owing to the small number of the series.

Implant factors that exaggerate risk Challenges of revision include malposition which is associated with increased incidence of aseptic loosening and increased metal ion release. This is due to increased edge loading of the prosthesis and loss of fluid film lubrication ^[12]. Also; many studies have emphasized that decreased femoral component size is associated with increased release of metal ions with subsequent the incidence of failure for every 4 mm decrease in femoral component diameter^[15]

Component loosening in our study involved 4 patients. In 3 cases both components were loose and revised while in one case only the femoral component affected and isolated femoral revision with retention of the acetabular shell has been done. The technique is less time consuming less technically demanding, minimizes risk of dislocation owing to use of large diameter femoral head and maintenance of residual acetabular bone stock ^[14]. The only drawback of this procedure concerned with conflicts about the use of metal on metal bearing surface total hip arthroplasty and corrosion-related complications. Recent studies utilized femoral component with dual mobility femoral head though the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of that ^{[6, 21]}

Sandiford NA et al. ^[23] declared that. Complete revision of both acetabular and femoral components to a THA would minimize the potential sources of cobalt and chromium ions and consequently could produce good short-term clinical outcomes.

In the setting of metallosis which explored intraoperatively in 3 cases, proper understanding of the characteristics and anatomic relationships is essential as this soft tissue contamination can distort normal surgical landmarks. Thorough debridement of metal debris and inflammatory soft tissue was performed. Any cystic or lytic osseous lesions were packed with bone graft. Extensive osteolysis may require the use of bone grafting along with supplemental fixation. Patients with these presentation had been revised by ceramic on ceramic bearing couplewith functional outcomes similar to those of Willert et al. ^[25]

Advantges of conversion of hip resurfacing to THA include avoidance of implant mismatch awareness, elimination of cobalt or chromium ions source if titanium-alloy femoral and acetabular components, or ceramic femoral heads are utilized. ^[10] However; some shortcomings may limit the prevalence of this strategy namely minimizing bone stock owing to bone loss on removal of hip resurface implants and concern of stability due to use of smaller femral head in THA compared with that of hip resurfacing implants^[17]

The targets to be achieved in this study are relief of pain and returning back of patient daily and sport activities. In last follow-up all patients (except one) returned back to their daily activities and sports. One patient has moderate reduction in range of motion owing to hetertropic ossification. .

Clinical outcomes of conversion of HRA to total hip arthroplasty had been assessed via some studies. Su et al. ^[24] declared that clinical outcomes of this conversion was related to the indication of revision and the highest postoperative outcome observed in patients who underwent conversion for femoral neck fracture or implant loosening. The worst outcomes were seen in patients who underwent revision for unexplained pain or metal sensitivity.

In our study the average highest outcome according to Oxford, Harris, WOMAC and UCLA activity hip scores observed in patients revised for femoral neck fractures with values at last visit of 39.5, 98,8, 7.4 and 9.3 respectively. The worst outcome observed in cases revised for unexplained pain with values of 38. 38.6, 4, 12.3 and 4 respectively. Our study outcome is comparable with many studies as Su et al. ^[24].

Revision of a single component of HRA, with retention of the remaining components, has been associated with mixed clinical results. In a study comparing 21 patients undergoing conversion of HRA to THA to patients undergoing primary THA, found that in the 18 patients who underwent femoral-sided revision only there was no clinical difference at a mean 46-month follow-up with regard to the mean Harris hip score; WOMAC and UCLA activity score ^[5]. The results could not be compared with those of our study as we have no comparative cohorts of primary THA (a limitation in our study).

Many studies emphsized that on revising resurfacing hip arthroplasty due to causes related to femoral component, the decision to change the femoral component only or both femoral and acetabular depends largely on the orientation of the acetabular component.[2,15]

In our study we follow similar strategy that if the lateral acetabular opening angle was greater than sixty degrees, we changed both acetabular and femoral components because some vertical orientation of the cup may be compatible with femoral component in resurfacing arthroplasty but this position is difficult to be compatible with fixed angle of the stemmed metal on metal THA prosthesis and lateral sublaxation mostly occur.

on the other hand; cases with lateral acetabular opening angle of resurfacing prosthesis near forty degree so during revision the fixed angle of the stemmed metal femoral component usually becomes compatible with the previous metal acetabular cup so in these cases we revised only femoral component.

Revision of both acetabular and femoral components of HRA to THA has varying clinical outcomes reported across multiple studies. ^[26]A registry study of 882 HRA revision emphasized that no difference in re-revision rates and clinical outcome between the acetabular-sided, femoral-sided, or combined acetabular and femoral-sided cohorts. ^[18] This finding correlated with the results of the prior study by Su et al. ^[24] Similar findindings have been illustrated in our study (Table5) with no marked differences in clinical outcome between both component revision and isolated femoral component revision regarding Oxford, Harris, WOMAC and UCLA activity hip scores. A small difference in outcome noticed in our study regarding the indication for revision with worst outcome in patients revised for component loosening, unexplained pain and component wear. Table(5)

Sandiford,et al^[23]in a review of 25 patients undergoing conversion of surface arthroplasty to THA, found significant postoperative increases in Oxford, Harris, and WOMAC hip scores, with clinical results similar to revision THA .

Reports on clinical outcomes following HRA revision for complications associated with metal wear are mixed, with some studies touting midterm clinical success rates as high as 97 %, while other data shows that revision for implant wear is associated with a significantly worse outcome when compared with revision for mechanical etiologies ^{[21, 24]}. These reports outcomes support our results regarding worse outcomes of revised cases for implant wear relative to those of femoral neck fractures ( 10 cases) or femoral neck thinning ( 3 cases). Table ( 5)

Limitations of the study

our study presents some limitations, namely small number of patients, follow-up period is somewhat short relatively and lacking of comparative study. The technique itself has some limitations owing to the concerns of metal on metal coupling in hip arthroplasty. Furthermore systematic approach to revision of hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty is necessary to ensure optimal clinical results.

There is a clear universal consensus that clinical outcome of conversion of HRA to THA is dependent on indication for revision, with revision for mechanical etiologies exhibiting better results than revision for complications associated with metal wear or component loosening. Our study supported by many literature reviews refer to preference of this approach of conversion as it can avoid implant mismatch awareness, eliminate and minimize cobalt or chromium ion source if titanium alloy or ceramic components utilized. However decrease bone stock owing to bone loss on removal of resurface implants and concern of stability due to use of smaller femoral head break the progress of this Syllabus. Further systemic reviews work, randomized controlled studies and research of high level of evidence are needed to facilitate the progress of this technique. It is also logical to assume that as the number of resurfacings increase, so will the number of revisions. This will provide larger series for study and also provide data based on component design.

WOMAC: western Ontario Macmaster.

UCLA: University of California at Los Anglos.

THA: Total hip Arthroplasty.

HRA: Hip resurfacing Arthroplasty.

Ethical approval:

This article does not contain any studies with animals.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study according to the rules of the hospital research ethical committee.

All procedures performed in our study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Availability of data and materials:

not applicable.

Competing interests:

There are no conflicts of interest in the manuscript, including financial, consultant, institutional and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest. Authors had no disclose for any financial ties to the subject of this research

Funding:

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Author contributions

to the study and manuscript preparation include the following:

Conception and design: Mohamed A. Abdel-aal,

Acquisition of data: Abdel-hamid A.A Saied Kareem

Analysis and interpretation of data: all authors.

Drafting the article: all authors.

Critically revising the article: all authors.

Reviewed submitted version of manuscript: all authors

Surgical technique of the study : All authors.

Acknowledgements:

we would appreciate as authors the whole stuff members of Al-zahraa university hospital Al-Azhar university and stuff members of El-Bakry General hospital Cairo-Egypt Ministry of Health.

Amstutz HC. Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Wisk LE.. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(16):2663–71.
Anglin C, Masri BA, Tonetti J, Hodgson AJ, Greidanus NV: Hip resurfacing femoral neck fracture influenced by valgus placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:71–9.
Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry annual report. Adelaide: AOA; 2009. p. 20–44.
Barrack RL, Ruh EL, Berend ME, Della Valle CJ, Parvizi J, Clohisy JC, Nunley RM:. active patients perceive advantages after surface replacement compared to cementless total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3803- 3813..
Ball ST, Le Duff M, Amstutz HC: Early results of conversion of a failed femoral component in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89:737-741.
Blevins JL, Shen TS, Morgenstern R, DeNova TA. Su EP: Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components. J. Arthroplasty. 2019 Sep; 34(9):2037-2044.
Buergi ML, Walter WL.: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty: The Australian experience. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 Suppl 3):61–5..
Carrothers AD, Gilbert RE, Jaiswal A, Richardson JB: Birmingham hip resurfacing: the prevalence of failure. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2010;92(10):1344–50..
De Haan R, Campbell PA, Su EP. De Smet KA. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1158- 1163..
Glyn-Jones S, Pandit H, Kwon YM,et al.: Risk factorsfor inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91(12):1566-74.
Gross TP, Liu F: Risk factor analysis for early femoral failure in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: the effect of bone density and body mass index. J. Orthop. Surg Res. (2012);7:1..
Haynes Jeffrey JA B., Stambough Robert L., Barrack D.N: Conversion of a failed hip resurfacing arthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty: pearls and pitfalls. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med.(2016); 9(1):103-111..
Klein GR, Levine BR, Hozack WJ, Strauss EJ: Return to athletic activity after total hip arthroplasty. Consensus guidelines based on a survey of the Hip Society and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. (2007);22(2):171–5..
Langton DJ1, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Webb J, Nargol AV: Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81:72- 76..
Langton DJ, Jameson SS, Joyce TJ, Webb J, Nargol AV: The effect of component size and orientation on the concentrations of metal ions after resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg. (Br) (2008); 90(9):1143–51..
Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendirttoli PA: Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. (2008);94;361-367.
Loughead JM, Starks I, Chesney D, Matthews JN, McCaskie AW, Holland JP: Removal of acetabular bone in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a comparison with hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. (2006), 88 (1): 31-4
Mattie E. Raiford, Matthew F. Barra, Thomas G. Myers: A Conversion Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not a Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty. Oper. Tech. Orthop.(2019), 29(3):215
McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. (Br) (1966); 48(2):245–59..
Murray DW, Gundle R, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P: The ten-year survival of the Birmingham hip resurfacing: an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg. (Br) (2012); 94(9):1180–6..
Pritchett J.W.: One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris.J Arthroplasty. (2014);29(1):219–24
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. Acta Orthop. (2010); 81(1):66–71..
Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA: Revision of failed hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty rapidly relieves pain and improves function in the early post operative period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:88..
Shimmin AJ, Bare J, Back DL. Complications associated with hip. resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36(2):187–93.
Schmidutz F, Wanke-Jellinek L, Jansson V, Fottner A, Mazoochian F: Revision of Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty with a Bone-conserving Short-stem Implant. Reconstructive Review, (2013); 3(2)..
Su EP, Su SL: Surface replacement conversion: results depend upon reason for revision. J.Bone Joint (2013);95-B(11 Suppl A):88–91..
Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Köster G, Lohmann CH: Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005, 87 (1): 28-36..
Wong JM, Liu YL, Graves S, de Steiger R. What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3458–3464.

Table (1)

Age distribution of patients

Age	Males	Females	Total
36-45years	3	3	6
46-55years	5	2	7
Above 56years	7	5	12
Total	15	10	25

Table (2)

Demographic distribution of patients

	Males	Females
Number	15	10
Mean Age	63Years	54.7years
Time to revision	36.8 months	42.1 months
Femral Neck fractures	7	3
Femoral neck thinning	2	1
Component loosening	2	2
Component dislocation	2	0
Groin pain	2	1
Component wear	2	1
Both component revision	13	6
Femoral component revision	2	4

Table (3)

Distribution of revised component relative to revision indication

Revised Component	NO.	FNF	FN thining	loosening	Dislocation	pain	wear	Total
Both components	19	8	2	3	2	2	2	19
Femoral component	6	2	1	1	----	1	1	6
Total	25	10	3	4	2	3	3	25
FN=Femoral neck FNF= Femoral neck fracture

Table (4)
Distribution of functional outcome according to indications

UCLA score

WOMAC score

Harris score

Oxford score

NO.

Indication

Postop.

Preop

Postop.

Preop

Postop.

Preop.

Postop.

preop

9.3

7.4

92.5

98.8

39.5

22.8

Femoral Neck fracture

8.5

11.2

91.8

96.5

18.9

Femoral Neck thinning

7.2

9.6

90.5

95.4

37.3

19.4

Loosening

5.7

10.1

84.4

88.5

36.5

18.9

Dislocation

12.3

72.2

86.4

38.8

18.8

Pain

7.3

88.4

88.2

35.7

Wear

73.3

92.3

35.7

39.8

21.2

Average

Table (5)

Functional outcome relative to indication of revision and revised component

Score Indication of revision	Revised component	FNF	FN thining	loosening	dislocation	pain	wear	Average
Oxford hip score	Both components revision	38.8	37.1	35.8	35.1	37.8	34.7	36.5
Oxford hip score	Femoral revision	39.3	37.8	35.8	36	38.7	35.1	37.3
Harris hip score	Both components revision	96.8	95	94.6	86.2	84.3	87	90.7
Harris hip score	Femoral revision	98	96.2	95	88.4	85	88.7	91.9
WOMAC score	Both components revision	7.8	12	9.5	9.6	11.8	12.6	10.55
WOMAC score	Femoral revision	17	10	10.2	10.3	12.1	14.5	12.35
UCLA activity score	Both components revision	8.1	7.8	7	5	6.4	7	6.9
UCLA activity score	Femoral revision	9.2	8.1	7.8	6.8	6.5	8.1	6.21
FNF=femoral neck fracture FN=Femoral neck

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Conversion of Failed Hip Resurfacings to Total Hip Arthroplasty- A Favorable Solution with Satisfactory Outcomes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction:

Patients And Methods:

Surgical Procedure:

Follow –up regimen:

Statistical analysis:

Results:

Complications

Discussion And Review Of Literatures:

Limitations of the study

Conclusion:

Abbreviations

Declarations

Ethical approval:

Availability of data and materials:

Competing interests:

Funding:

Author contributions

Acknowledgements:

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1