Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015:2015:817689.
doi: 10.1155/2015/817689. Epub 2015 May 26.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients

Affiliations

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome from Neck-Preserving, Short-Stem Arthroplasty and Resurfacing Arthroplasty in Younger Osteoarthritis Patients

Marius Dettmer et al. Adv Orthop. 2015.

Abstract

Hip resurfacing has been considered a good treatment option for younger, active osteoarthritis patients. However, there are several identified issues concerning risk for neck fractures and issues related to current metal-on-metal implant designs. Neck-preserving short-stem implants have been discussed as a potential alternative, but it is yet unclear which method is better suited for younger adults. We compared hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS) from a young group of patients (n = 52, age 48.9 ± 6.1 years) who had received hip resurfacing (HR) with a cohort of patients (n = 73, age 48.2 ± 6.6 years) who had received neck-preserving, short-stem implant total hip arthroplasty (THA). Additionally, durations for both types of surgery were compared. HOOS improved significantly preoperatively to last followup (>1 year) in both groups (p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.69); there were no group effects or interactions. Surgery duration was significantly longer for resurfacing (104.4 min ± 17.8) than MiniHip surgery (62.5 min ± 14.8), U = 85.0, p < 0.0001, η (2) = 0.56. The neck-preserving short-stem approach may be preferable to resurfacing due to the less challenging surgery, similar outcome, and controversy regarding resurfacing implant designs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) HR implant, (b) traditional implant, and (c) neck-preserving, short-stem implant (Corin MiniHip). Most bone tissue is retained with HR (femoral head and neck, no significant intrusion of the femoral canal), whereas parts of the femoral neck are also preserved with the MiniHip approach.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of presurgery and postsurgery HOOS (scale of 0–100) means (and standard error) and duration of surgery (in minutes) in MiniHip and resurfacing arthroplasty. Independent of surgery type, all subscale scores improved after surgery. The only group differences were found in comparison of surgery duration. ∗∗ p < 0.0001.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siopack J. S., Jergesen H. E. Total hip arthroplasty. Western Journal of Medicine. 1995;162(3):243–249. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pivec R., Johnson A. J., Mears S. C., Mont M. A. Hip arthroplasty. The Lancet. 2012;380(9855):1768–1777. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60607-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aldinger P. R., Breusch S. J., Lukoschek M., Mau H., Ewerbeck V., Thomsen M. A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the Cementless Spotorno stem. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery—British Volume. 2003;85(2):209–214. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b2.13216. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Archibeck M. J., Berger R. A., Jacobs J. J., et al. Second-generation cementless total hip arthroplasty: eight to eleven-year results. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery—American Volume. 2001;83(11):1666–1672. - PubMed
    1. Bodén H., Salemyr M., Sköldenberg O., Ahl T., Adolphson P. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented hydroxyapatite-coated tapered titanium stem: results at a minimum of 10 years' follow-up in 104 hips. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 2006;11(2):175–179. doi: 10.1007/s00776-005-0986-5. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources