Hip Replacement or Hip Resurfacing with a Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Acetabular Bearing: A Qualitative and Quantitative Preference Study

BACKGROUND: Most surgeons strongly prefer total hip arthroplasty (THA) over hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). However, it is unknown whether patients prefer the results of 1 procedure over the other. The purpose of this study was to answer 3 questions: (1) Do patients with an HRA on 1 side and a THA on the other notice a difference? (2) Do patients have a preference? (3) What are the reasons for their preference? METHODS: Between 1998 and 2012, 332 patients underwent staged bilateral hip arthroplasties with cementless THA on 1 side and HRA on the other, with a highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular component used for both. Patient preferences, Harris hip scores, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were recorded by blinded examiners. Patients provided reasons for their preference in semi-structured interviews using both quantitative and qualitative measures. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 7 to 21 years). Of 324 patients with complete data, 279 (86%) preferred the HRA, 19 (6%) preferred the THA, and 26 (8%) had no preference. The most common reasons for preference for the HRA were better balance (n = 143), felt more normal (n = 141), better activity participation/more reliable hip during sports (n = 139), and stronger on stairs (n = 129). A fair or poor outcome was reported by the patient after 4 HRAs and 7 THAs. The remainder of the patients reported improved function and satisfactory pain relief and range of motion for both hips. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, most patients in this study preferred the side on which the HRA had been done. Since essentially all current hip prostheses perform well, a paired bilateral study may be the optimal way to determine patient preferences and values of HRA compared with THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.