Birmingham hip resurfacing versus cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients 55 years or younger: A minimum five-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

The optimal reconstructive method for advanced degenerative hip disease in young adults is a topic of ongoing discussion. The purpose of this study is to report the largest single institution experience from the United States on the outcomes of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) vs. cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients 55 years or younger at a minimum follow-up of five years. Currently, BHR is the only FDA-approved hip resurfacing implant available in the US.

METHODS

A cohort of 505 patients representing all BHR cases performed at our institution between 2006 and 2010 was compared with an identical size cohort of consecutive patients who underwent primary cementless THA. Exclusion criteria were age greater than 55 years, non-elective cases, revision procedures, and those performed for fractures, tumors, or by low-volume arthroplasty surgeons. THAs with metal on metal articulation were also excluded.

OUTCOMES

assessed were all-cause reoperations, complications, patient satisfaction, and mortality. After exclusions, 442 patients with BHR and 327 with THA were included.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 73.2 months. After controlling for potential confounding factors, multivariate analyses showed significant increase in the rates of revision surgery (p < 0.001), overall complications (p < 0.001), all-cause reoperations (p = 0.014), and mortality (p < 0.001) in the THA cohort. Component loosening was the most common cause for revision in the THA group. Patients with THA were also less likely to be satisfied (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

This is largest US study to report on the midterm outcomes of BHR vs. THA. The results demonstrate favorable results for BHR in patients 55 years or younger. Long-term multicenter studies are needed to better understand the optimal patient characteristics when deciding between THA versus BHR.