Birmingham Metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing (BHR) is a bone-conserving option for patients with advanced articular damage. While the outcomes of Total Hip Replacement (THR) are well documented, there is a paucity of literature comparing the patient reported outcomes of BHR versus THR. This study aims to compare the patient reported outcomes for an impact on quality of life between patients who had a BHR vs. THR after correcting for selection bias.

Patients who underwent a BHR or THR between July 2003 and December 2006 were included. Patient questionnaires included demographic details, co-morbidities, WOMAC, SF-36 Scores. In addition, a 4 point Likert scale was used to measure satisfaction post-operatively. The above data was collected pre-operatively and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years post-operatively. Data was analysed with SPSS (version 19) software package. All analysis was adjusted for Age, gender, Co-morbidity and pre-operative score by using Multivariate regression analysis using a General Liner Model to rule out the effect of these predictors on outcomes between groups.

337 patients were included (205 for THR and 132 for BHR). BHR patients were younger than THR patients (49 vs. 67 years, p<0.01), were more likely to be male (68% vs. 42% of THR, p<0.01), reported fewer co-morbidities (1.06 vs. 1.59, p<0.01). BHR patients reported better WOMAC pain and function scores at 5 years (p<0.05). For SF-36 scores, BHR patients reported higher scores for all 8 domains at 1 year and 5 year follow up (p<0.05). BHR patients reported higher satisfaction than THR group for return to Activities of Daily Living and Recreational activities at 1 and 5 years (p<0.05)

After correction for patient variability, BHR patients reported better improvement in pain and function and enjoyed a better quality of life in relation to return to ADL and recreational activities over to 5 years post-surgery.

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible benefit of large-head metal-on-metal bearing on a stem for primary hip replacement compared with a 28 mm diameter conventional metal-on-polyethylene bearing in a prospective randomised controlled trial. We investigated cemented stem behaviour between these two different bearings using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse, clinical and patient reported measures (Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Short Form-36 and satisfaction) and whole blood metal ion levels at two years. A power study indicated that 50 hips were needed in each group to detect subsidence of > 5 mm at two years with a p-value of < 0.05.

Significant improvement (p < 0.001) was found in the mean clinical and patient reported outcomes at two years for both groups. Comparison of outcomes between the groups at two years showed no statistically significant difference for mean stem migration, clinical and patient reported outcomes; except overall patient satisfaction which was higher for metal-on-metal group (p = 0.05). Metal ion levels were raised above the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency advised safety level (7 µg per litre) in 20% of the metal-on-metal group and in one patient in metal-on-polyethylene group (who had a metal-on-metal implant on the contralateral side). Two patients in the metal-on-metal group were revised, one for pseudotumour and one for peri-prosthetic fracture.

Use of large modular heads is associated with a risk of raised whole blood metal ion levels despite using a proven bearing from resurfacing. The head-neck junction or excess stem micromotion are possibly the weak links warranting further research.