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

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.