Cargando…

Prospective Study Comparing Functional Outcomes and Revision Rates Between Hip Resurfacing and Total Hip Arthroplasty: Preliminary Results for 2 Years

There is a need of independent prospective studies about modern generation of hip resurfacing implants. The aim of this propective observational study was to compare the functional outcomes and revision rates with hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty and to present the preliminary...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pailhé, Régis, Reina, Nicolas, Cavaignac, Etienne, Sharma, Akash, Lafontan, Valérie, Laffosse, Jean-Michel, Chiron, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3808795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24191180
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/or.2013.e20
Descripción
Sumario:There is a need of independent prospective studies about modern generation of hip resurfacing implants. The aim of this propective observational study was to compare the functional outcomes and revision rates with hip resurfacing arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty and to present the preliminary results at 2 years. Patients included were recruited prospectively in the Partial Pelvic Replacement Hip Project by a single surgeon between January 2007 and January 2010. Patients were assessed with the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (MDA) score and Devane Score. The end point of the study was reoperation for any cause related to the prosthesis. At a mean follow up of 38.6 months there were a total of 142 patients with hip resurfacing (group 1) [100 Durom(®) (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA) and 42 Birmingham Hip Resurfacing(®) (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)] and 278 patients with total hip arthroplasty (group 2). The results showed significantly greater gain of HHS, MDA and Devane score with hip resurfacing procedures. However, considering all the complications, the rate was significantly higher in group 16.4% vs 1.79% in group 2 (P<0.0001). In group 1 we observed 6 complications only concerned males with Durom(®) implants. The follow up of this cohort is still on going and may deliver more information on the evolution of these results in time.