Five to Ten-Year Results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Implant in the U.S.: A Single Institution's Experience.

BACKGROUND

International surgeon series and registry data have demonstrated positive outcomes and long-term survival of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. We report the 5 to 10-year results from a single center in the U.S.

METHODS

Three hundred and fourteen patients (360 hips) underwent surface replacement arthroplasty with use of the BHR implant and consented to study participation. Patient-reported outcomes and complication and revision data were collected at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up for 93% (324 of 350) of the hips in surviving patients. A matched-cohort analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes between use of the BHR and total hip arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Mean modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores significantly improved postoperatively, to 89.9 and 8.0, respectively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of survival for all-cause revision was 97.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.7% to 98.5%) and 93.8% (95% CI, 88.8% to 96.7%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. In a subgroup analysis of patients fitting our current BHR inclusion criteria (males <60 years of age with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and anatomy conducive to a femoral head component of ≥48 mm), survival free of aseptic revision was 99.5% (95% CI, 96.6% to 99.9%) at 5 years and 98.2% (95% CI, 94.4% to 99.4%) at 10 years. Fourteen patients (4.3% of all hips) required revision. Postoperative UCLA scores were significantly greater for BHR compared with total hip arthroplasty (mean score of 8.0 ± 2.0 versus 7.6 ± 1.8; p = 0.040) in a matched-cohort analysis, with patients matched according to preoperative UCLA score, diagnosis, age, sex, and body mass index. Among matched patients who were highly active preoperatively (UCLA score of 9 to 10), BHR provided a smaller median decrease in the postoperative UCLA score (0.0 versus 1.0; p < 0.001), which was clinically important according to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 0.92). Furthermore, BHR provided a greater likelihood of remaining highly active compared with total hip arthroplasty (61% compared with 20%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes at 5 to 10 years in selected patients. As compared with total hip arthroplasty, the use of the BHR may provide highly active patients with clinically important advantages in postoperative activity as well as a greater likelihood of remaining highly active. Continued follow-up is necessary to validate long-term BHR outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.