Abstract
The use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) remains controversial due to the increased revision rate in female patients. We compared the outcomes of BHR in female patients to an age matched total hip arthroplasty(THA) cohort. We reviewed the pain, function and total Harris Hip Scores(HHS), and Kaplan-Meir survivorship for BHR and THA cohorts from a prospective regional arthroplasty database.
There were 234 patients in each cohort, with mean age of 51 years. The BHR cohort had significantly better function and total HHS at all points of the 5-year study, but not for the post-operative pain score. The 5-year revision rate for the BHR cohort was significantly higher than the THA cohort (6.8% vs 3.4%, p=0.001). The main reason for revision in the BHR cohort was aseptic loosening (n=8), followed by metallosis (n=3). The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 92.6% (95% CI±1.7%) and 96.4% (95% CI±1.3%) for the BHR and THA cohort (p=0.001).
BHR can give significantly better functional outcomes than THA. The vast majority of female patients were happy with BHR and did not need further surgery at the 5-year stage. This is somewhat at odds with the recent reputation of the procedure. The 10-year result of the same cohort is warranted to provide further data. Our study is not a recommendation to still offer BHR to female patients, but rather to inject a note of realism into the debate. There are implications for future implant development in that these results do validate resurfacing as a functionally valuable option for active patients.
